Preamble

The House met at a Quartet before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Redcar Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister what is the position in connection with the responsibility of the Japanese Government for damage caused to British property in China owing to their military operations; whether the Japanese Government have accepted the principle of responsibility for compensation; and whether machinery is being set up to assess and liquidate claims so made?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The position is that the Japanese Government have not formally and specifically acknowledged responsibility for damage caused to British property in China owing to their military operations, and it has consequently not so far been possible to set up any machinery for the assessment and liquidation of claims.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Are arrangements being made to press these claims with sufficient force; and is there a British organisation to put these claims forward and press them upon the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: I shall have to investigate the question of organisation. I know that claims are being pressed.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister particulars of any persons who were evacuated from Amoy or Kulangsu Islands, China, by British warships; and

the number of British subjects that are known to be residing in this district?

Mr. Butler: No British subjects have been evacuated from Amoy or Kulangsu Islands by British warships. The number of British subjects residing in this district in July, 1937, was 232.

Mr. Day: Do the reports show that the whole of Amoy is now in the hands of the Japanese?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I understand that that is so.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister what reply has been received to the protests made on 31st December, 1937, 31st March, 5th April, 6th April, and nth April, 1938, to the Japanese authorities in connection with recent cases of assault by Japanese against British subjects in the International Settlement at Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: I am investigating the details of these cases, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement concerning the wounding of Mr. H. E. Wilkinson by a Japanese soldier in the neighbourhood of Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: I understand that Mr. Wilkinson was arrested by a Japanese military patrol in the Hungjao area outside the defence perimeter of Shanghai about 7 a.m. on 13th May, and that after he had informed the Japanese that he was a British subject he was struck by them and wounded in the back with a bayonet. He was not sent to military headquarters until 4 p.m., where he was interrogated before being released with apologies on behalf of the patrol. On hearing the news of Mr. Wilkinson's arrest, the matter was at once taken up by the British authorities at Shanghai, who have protested strongly to the Japanese against this illegal detention of a British subject and also against the whole circumstances of the case. His Majesty's Ambasador in Tokyo has also been instructed to take up this matter with the Japanese Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that Mr. Wilkinson's record in Japan shows that he is a man who is incapable


of having given any offence or of having been engaged in any activities in connection with the Japanese; and will His Majesty's Government do more than protest, and will demand a proper apology and compensation in this case?

Mr. Butler: I entirely support all the observations made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take about the violation of the Hague Conventions involved in the wholesale shooting of Chinese prisoners and the machine-gunning of boats containing Chinese women and children during the course of the recent attack by the Japanese army on the island of Amoy?

Mr. Butler: I have no official reports that boats containing Chinese women and children were machine-gunned, but a number of Chinese soldiers were taken prisoner and shot on Amoy bund by the Japanese. His Majesty's Government cannot too strongly deplore and condemn such a violation of the Hague Conventions.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a fact that Japan claims that she is not at war with China, which makes these atrocities even worse.

Mr. Butler: I cannot too strongly deplore and condemn such a violation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Under-Secretary for his condemnation of these incidents, may I ask whether he will consider making a formal protest to Tokyo, which might have an effect on the conduct of Japanese soldiers?

Mr. Butler: I trust that this question and the answer will have the desired effect in the proper quarters.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (BRITISH BARRISTERS).

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British subjects who are barristers-at-law and who have been practising in Egypt in the Consular Courts for many years are now unable to practise their profession owing to the change in consular jurisdiction as a result of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty; whether any efforts are

being made to assist those so affected to secure other employment; and, if so, what action has been taken?

Mr. Butler: The answers to the first two parts of the hon. Member's question are that the British Consular Court is being retained for personal status questions, and that this work constitutes, from a practical point of view, rather more than one-half of its previous jurisdiction. I cannot admit, therefore, that even those barristers in Egypt who practised solely before the British Consular Court are no longer able to practise their profession in Egypt. Nevertheless, efforts have been made to find alternative employment for the four barristers who desire it, but so far unsuccessfully because they are not of the right age or qualifications.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is it the Government's view that these gentlemen must have known that there would be a change which would make it impossible for them to carry on their previous occupation? Is it not also true that, previous to last year, the idea was that if capitulations were to be abolished British jurisdiction would be substituted, in which case these gentlemen would have been able to continue practising. In these circumstances, would not the Government consider waiving the age limit and allowing them to practise?

Mr. Butler: The Government are doing their best, though they are under no obligation to these barristers. The position was fully stated in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 13th July, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not recognise the Italian Government's claim to Ethiopia until they have satisfied themselves by independent inquiry that the Italian authorities are in complete de facto military and civil control of the whole of the country?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are satisfied as to the accuracy of the information contained in the reply given


to the hon. Member on nth April, and they are not prepared to support any proposal for an independent inquiry of the nature suggested.

Mr. Henderson: Surely His Majesty's Government are going to follow the usual international practice, and refuse to recognise any conquest unless the Italian Government are in complete occupation of the whole country?

Mr. Butler: I have told the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt his suggestion. In previous answers I have told him our information with regard to the present position in Abyssinia.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the information given by the Emperor of Ethiopia at Geneva been brought to the notice of the Cabinet?

Mr. Butler: I think the Cabinet are fully aware of these matters.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the hon. Gentleman taken notice of the information given by the Frenchman, M. Pecheral, who was personally in Abyssinia with the Abyssinian forces in the field a few weeks ago?

Mr. Butler: I have not personally seen it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If I send it to the Minister, will he take it into consideration?

Mr. Henderson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government, as a result of recent discussions and decisions at the League of Nations, have reconsidered their attitude to the question of the alleged conquest of Abyssinia; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. Butler: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the Abyssinian representative at the League of Nations gave definite evidence, which could not be refuted by the British representative, in connection with the alleged conquest of Abyssinia?

Mr. Butler: We have already had one question on this subject, and I informed the House that the information in our possession had been given to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) earlier.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that since then evidence has been submitted which has not been refuted by the British representative at the League, has the Government reconsidered the position?

Mr. Butler: The position is as stated in the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Signor Mussolini's declaration on Saturday last referring to the Spanish war and the French-Italian negotiations, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will support the French Government in resisting Italian pressure to compel them to change the French policy in relation to the Spanish Government?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may rest assured that the good offices of His Majesty's Government are always at the disposal of both the French and Italian Governments, should they desire them, with a view to expediting a settlement of the Spanish situation.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the policy of the French Government and of His Majesty's Government in relation to Spain is the same, do the Government intend to allow the Italian Government to drive a wedge between the two Governments on this question?

Mr. Butler: I do not necessarily accept the interpretation the hon. Member places on Signor Mussolini's speech. Therefore, I cannot give the assurance he desires.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it the policy of the French Government to break in every way the policy of nonintervention?

Mr. Butler: I can only be responsible for the Government I represent.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to allay the anxiety of relatives of prisoners of British nationality held by either side in


Spain, he will ask the insurgent and Government authorities to supply a complete list for publication?

Mr. Butler: The British Agent at Burgos has already asked for, and been promised, full particulars of all British prisoners captured by General Franco's forces. These particulars, which will, I hope, be received in London shortly, will be available for publication. I have no reason to think that any British subjects have been captured by the Spanish Government forces.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Can nothing be done to speed up the exchange of prisoners and other humanitarian work?

Mr. Butler: That is another question, with which I have dealt with in previous answers. We are at present proposing to submit a new proposal to the Spanish Government.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Do I understand that the Foreign Office will publish the list when it is received?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wise: Is it not the fact that the sole obstacle in the way of arranging an exchange has been the attitude of the Barcelona Government?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister how many men serving on British ships engaged in legitimate trade with Spain have been injured or killed by the insurgents or their allies since the beginning of the war in Spain; and in how many of these cases has compensation been paid to these men or their dependants, and by whom?

Mr. Butler: So far as I am aware, 27 have been killed and 37 injured. As regards compensation, I have nothing to add to the answer given on 2nd March to a question by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr.Shinwell).

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why less insistent claims are made in the case of these British seamen than the claim made in the case of the British Ambassador at Tokyo; and will he say how it is possible to assess damages at a later date, which may be years ahead?

Mr. Butler: A claim was not made in the case of the British Ambassador.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, in his previous answers on this subject, he was able to say whether compensation of the dependants of seamen has been paid, and, if not, will be obtain information and satisfy himself on that head?

Mr. Butler: In a previous reply to the hon. Gentleman reference was made to the arrangement made by the National Maritime Board for the payment of special compensation in these cases.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Maritime Board deal with rates and conditions for men employed aboard ship, and have nothing to do with the question of compensation arising out of the killing of men in Spain?

Mr. Butler: It is some satisfaction to know that arrangements have been made by the National Maritime Board for the payment of special compensation in these cases.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: In view of the delay which necessarily arises before any compensation can be paid by a foreign administration, and of the very high profits which are believed to be made out of this class of freight, would it not be best for the Government to invite the owners of these ships to give compensation to the dependants of these men?

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the answer of the hon. Gentleman that the National Maritime Board are accepting an obligation that ought to be imposed on the Burgos Government?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I said that the National Maritime Board have made arrangements for special compensation, and the further question is under consideration.

Mr. Noél-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now define the circumstances in which His Majesty's Government will consider that a settlement of the Spanish question has been arrived at?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House on 2nd May.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do His Majesty's Government accept or repudiate the definition which Signor Mussolini has now given, that there must be a victory by


General Franco before a settlement can be arrived at?

Mr. Butler: The policy of the Government is given by the Prime Minister, and not by anybody else.

Mr. Attlee: Is not the the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister positively refused to give the House any explanation whatever as to what was meant by the settlement, and, as we have had it from Signor Mussolini, may we know whether the Prime Minister agrees with it?

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister's refusal to define what he means by these words stands as it did in the Debate on 2nd May. He said that it may be that later on we shall get nearer the time when we can give a definition, and he authorises me to say that that time is not yet.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that Signor Mussolini has said that he cannot make an agreement with the French Government until that Government accepts General Franco's victory, and does that mean, since we have an agreement, that the Prime Minister has accepted a General Franco victory?

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the British Consul at Barcelona has removed some 40 miles away; and what arrangements have been made to obtain' accurate information from Barcelona for the protection of British interests there?

Mr. Butler: Caldetas, to which the Consulate-General has been removed, is 25 miles away, but a branch office maintained in Barcelona is attended daily by members of the consular staff.

Mr. Leach: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these three consuls explain the paucity of the Government's news and information about Spain?

Mr. Benn: asked the Prime Minister in what terms he explained the meaning of the words "a settlement in Spain" in the conversation he had in February with the Italian Ambassador?

Mr. Butler: The conversation between the Italian Ambassador and the Prime Minister was private, and he is not prepared to answer questions as to its

nature. The right hon. Member must not, however, assume that my right hon. Friend gave an explanation of the words quoted in the question.

Mr. Benn: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister insisted that a settlement was a condition of the Agreement, but did not give any explanation of what he meant by it?

Mr. Butler: We have already discussed this matter by question and answer.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Member aware that some of his questions are misleading?

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of recent discussions at the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government have altered their attitude to the Non-intervention Committee; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend made it clear during the recent discussions of the League Council that His Majesty's Government had no intention of modifying their policy of non-intervention in Spain or their support of the Nonintervention Committee.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Member aware that the Spanish representative at the League of Nations submitted definite evidence, proving beyond dispute that non-intervention had been broken on a large scale by Italy and Germany? Has that statement been considered by the Cabinet since' it was made?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, it has been considered. It is admitted that there have been breaches on both sides, but His Majesty's Government are continuing the policy of non-intervention.

Mr. Davidson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered.

Mr. Davidson: The Under-Secretary did not answer the second part of my question.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister how many British ships have been sunk or injured by the insurgents or their allies since the beginning of the war in Spain; and in how many of these cases have complaints and claims for damage been made against General Franco?

Mr. Butler: Three British ships have been sunk, and, apart from those struck during bombardments when in harbour, three have been damaged. Protests have been made in respect of all these ships and His Majesty's Government have reserved their right to claim full compensation. Some 25 British ships have been hit, the majority of them very slightly, during air raids on Spanish Government ports. From the evidence available, His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that four of these ships had been deliberately attacked, and a protest was accordingly made, the right to claim compensation being reserved. His Majesty's Government are considering further evidence regarding the most recent bombardments.

Miss Rathbone: What is the machinery for assessing these claims?

Mr. Butler: So far, we have just notified the claims, and the actual machinery for assessing claims must be considered later.

Mr. Attlee: Why have our Government not pressed for immediate satisfaction against a government which is not recognised, while they demand immediate satisfaction from a de jure government like the Government of Japan?

Mr. Butler: I explained the matter at some length in the Debate on 12th May.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member has not given any reason at all, either in that Debate or anywhere else, why we did not press these claims against a government which is not recognised, and which may fall at any time.

Mr. Butler: I gave the reasons, to the best of my ability, in the Debate on 12th May.

Mr. David Grenfell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the protest has been addressed to the direct authors of the crime, namely, the Italian aviators, flying under the Italian Government's orders?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are we to understand that the British Government are incapable of defending their own nationals?

Miss Rathbone: May I ask a further question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already answered several questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the request from the United States Government that, owing to the serious nature of the problem of political refugees, an international committee should be formed; and what action it is proposed to take?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have informed the United States Government that they welcome the proposal to set up a special committee of representatives of a number of Governments to deal with the problem of emigration from Germany and Austria. The United States Government have now suggested that this committee shall meet at Evian on 6th July, and the question of the representation of His Majesty's Government is under consideration.

Miss Wilkinson: Do the Government intend to take action at once to help these people who are hunting for a place to rest their feet?

Mr. Butler: No. We shall go on considering this matter.

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Member not consider the advisability of first formulating a definite British policy in regard to refugees, and setting up a committee for the purpose; and does there not seem to be a complete lack of co-ordination between the different Departments concerned?

Mr. Butler: I am quite aware of the great seriousness of the problem, and will certainly remember what the hon. Lady has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN MINORITIES.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have recently made any representations to the Italian Government concerning the treatment of German and other minorities in the South Tyrol and other parts of Italy?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Adams: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the treatment of these minorities is noticeably better than that of the Sudeten-Deutsche in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister give us any reason why the Germans are not


carrying on intensive propaganda in this particular place, as they are in others?

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have recently made any representations to the Polish Government concerning the treatment of German and other minorities in Poland?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Adams: Is not the principle involved the same as that of the Sudeten-Deutsche in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Butler: I do not think the problems are identical.

Sir H. Croft: Have the Polish Government made any representations in regard to the Scottish and Welsh minorities in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay a White Paper before the House giving the full text of the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Mexico concerning the questions which have led to the present rupture of diplomatic relations?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. A White Paper containing the correspondence up to date will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. Benn: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in this Mexican correspondence, the Cabinet has kept in close touch with American opinion on the subject?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I understand that that is so.

Mr. Benn: How is it that the hon. Gentleman is so well informed on Cabinet matters, when I addressed the question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Butler: There is liaison between us and, as far as possible, I am aware of the policy, and that is what I have given to the House.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Benn: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, when the acting-Prime Minister and Deputy-Leader of the House is present, and the

question is addressed to him, I am entitled to have an answer from him on a Cabinet matter?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has already had three answers.

Mr. Maxton: Do you realise, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has asked three questions while I have been trying to ask one?

Mr. Speaker: I quite realise that fact.

Mr. Maxton: Will that one now be in Order? Do I understand from the Under-Secretary that it is his statement that the Cabinet is responsible for this preposterous action with reference to Mexico?

Mr. Butler: The Cabinet is certainly responsible for any instructions that are given on such matters of foreign policy.

Mr. Maxton: I thought it was just a stupid blunder.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister how many petitions have been received by the Secretariat of the League of Nations during the last 10 years from German-speaking citizens of Czechoslovakia complaining of the refusal of political, social, or cultural rights to these citizens by the Czechoslovakian Government?

Mr. Butler: As full particulars are not readily available in London, I am making inquiries at Geneva and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the representations which His Majesty's Government are making to the Czechoslovakian Government to grant further cultural or political rights to its German-speaking minorities, he will make it clear that any such action should be conditional on reciprocal concessions being made by the German Government to the Czech minorities within German territory?

Mr. Butler: As I said in the House on 16th May, His Majesty's Government have urged upon the Czechoslovak Government the desirability of doing everything in their power to further an agreed settlement of the problem, but they have not suggested any particular measures or


concessions. There is no substantial Czech minority in Germany, and the action suggested by the hon. Member would not, therefore, be appropriate.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a minority consisting of several hundred thousand Czechs, and that neither to that minority nor to any other minority in Germany do the German Government extend political or cultural rights, or anything else?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the figures of the hon. Member, which seem to me to be very much exaggerated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MALTA AND GIBRALTAR (MINISTERS' VISITS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many times, and on what dates, the naval establishments at Malta and Gibraltar have been inspected by the First Lord, the Civil Lord, or the Parliamentary Secretary since August, 1931?

—
First Lord.
Parliamentary Secretary.
Civil Lord.


Malta
…
April-May, 1933
May, 1934
February, 1933.




August-September, 1936

December, 1935.




October, 1937




Gibraltar
…
December, 1932

February, 1933.




March, 1934 (Board Visit)

December, 1935.




September, 1936

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under the marriage allowance scheme, childless married officers in an appointment on shore where no official quarters are provided and who nominally receive 7s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. extra a day will be financially better off at the end of the year, and to what extent in the case of captains, commanders, and lieutenant-commanders, respectively?

Mr. Cooper: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Captains will, however, benefit only to the extent of a few shillings. Commanders and lieutenant-commanders will gain £2 2S. 6d.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): since the date mentioned there have been six visits to Malta and five to Gibraltar by the Ministers in question. With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate the further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: What is the matter with the naval establishments at Malta and Gibraltar when they call for such frequent visits of inspection from representatives of the Admiralty—11 visits in seven years?

Mr. Cooper: Eleven visits in seven years is not a very large number. The hon. and gallant Member must recollect that Ministers have changed during that period. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was about to carry out one of these visits when a change was made in the Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Do not these numerous visits to Malta and Gibraltar indicate that they are far more for the purpose of affording a joy ride than for naval inspection purposes?

Following are the details:

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The White Paper announced that the officers will receive 7s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. a day, but does the First Lord not consider, in view of the answers that he has given to me, that that is an exceedingly misleading statement? The officers only receive, in the case of a captain, 7s. 6d. & year, and in the case of the other officers £2 2s. 6d. a year.

Mr. Cooper: I have explained on several occasions to my hon. and gallant Friend that this alteration was made in order to make sure that under the new scheme married officers without children should not be worse off than before. As a result of it, it was intended that they should be about the same, but they are in fact better off. As I have informed


my hon. and gallant Friend often before, no officer will be worse off as a result of the change, but nearly every officer will be better off.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I say that it is not a very great recommendation to the married officers to say that no officer will be worse off under the scheme than he was before?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a captain in a shore appointment with an official residence, on the service furniture of which he has to pay 7 per cent. per annum of its capital value, will receive marriage allowance under the scheme?

Mr. Cooper: Married officers, who are provided with an official residence in which their families can join them, draw children's allowances only.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask whether in the matter of these allowances the First Lord has consulted the Minister of Labour, who has a wide experience of how low allowances can be?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: There are 101 Questions on the Order Paper. If hon. Members persist in asking so many supplementary questions, the House will have to arrange some other method of dealing with Questions.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have not asked a supplementary question on this question. I ask your permission to put one.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members may ask supplementaries on their questions, but it is not necessary on every occasion to ask a supplementary question.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. If the answer the hon. Member receives does not clear up the point which he desires to clear up, is he not permitted to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Whether the Minister clears up the point or not, very often hon. Members ask supplementary questions.

OWER DECK PROMOTIONS.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the average age when the man, promoted

from the lower deck, reaches the rank of lieutenant-commander?

Mr. Cooper: The average age of those officers selected from the lower deck under the scheme introduced in 1933 will be 32 years 11 months when they reach the rank of lieutenant-commander. The age of the officers selected in 1937 was, however, lower, and it is anticipated that, with the modifications introduced in the scheme last year, the age at the time of selection will be reduced still further.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend consider that these men promoted from the lower deck will be able to marry on this extra allowance of £4?

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ENCHANTRESS."

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of construction of His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress"; the total number of the officers and ratings employed on this ship; and the total cost of the maintenance of the ship for each of the years 1935–36, 1936–37, and 1937–38?

Mr. Cooper: The cost of construction of His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" was approximately £170,000. The normal complement of the ship as an escort vessel is six officers and 111 ratings. The total maintenance costs during the years J935–36, 1936–37 and 1937–38 were approximately £24,700, £34,600 and £35,500, respectively.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ports were visited by His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" in 1937 during the course of the voyages in that year conveying the First Lord; and what was the cost of these voyages?

Mr. Cooper: The following ports were visited by His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" in 1937 when conveying the First Lord: Holyhead, Skiport, Oban, Mal-laig, Stornoway, Dunrobin, Invergordon, Rosyth, Venice, Sibenik, Skyros, Rhodes, Kyrenia, Famagusta, Port Said, Alexandria, Malta, Naples. The approximate cost of fuel consumed during these voyages was £400.

Mr. Griffiths: I would like the First Lord to answer the latter part of the question—what was the cost of these voyages?

Mr. Cooper: The approximate cost of the fuel consumed was £400.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not asking the cost of the fuel. I am asking the total cost.

Mr. Cooper: That is the only cost. The hon. Member will realise that ratings and officers receive their pay allowances in the ordinary way.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the First Lord accept an invitation to visit Campbeltown next time?

Mr. MacLaren: The whisky is bad there.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the considered proposals of the local Government of Barbados on the recommendations of the Commission appointed to inquire into the disturbance of last summer; what steps are being taken to relieve the grave social and economic distress; what is being done in the matter of over-population in the island; and whether it is proposed to implement the recommendations in respect to the appointment of a commission to make a survey of settlement and economic development in the West Indies and on the American mainland?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I have received a report from the Acting-Governor of Barbados which shows that the Colonial Government is proceeding as rapidly as possible in the matter, but many of the recommendations naturally require more detailed consideration and would involve legislation in the Colony. Bills are being introduced to provide for the appointment of a Labour Officer, and for the creation of minimum wage-fixing machinery; to enable the necessary information to be obtained from importers in order that a check may be kept on the margins of profit on foodstuffs, and to facilitate the removal of unsatisfactory housing accommodation in Bridgetown. Some of the relief works

mentioned in the report are already in hand, and others are under consideration.

As regards over-population, a scheme for the settlement of about 475 Barbadian families in St. Lucia is on point of completion, and some 170 Barbadian artisans have accepted offers of employment in the oil industry in Curacao. In general, it is proposed to wait until it is known what response is received to the St. Lucia scheme before embarking on further emigration schemes. I am dealing with the last part of this question in my reply to Question No. 33.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the many reports on recent disturbances in the West Indies that labour unrest is due to economic causes and that distress exists in many of the islands, he will cause an inquiry into the whole problem of over-population, social distress, and economic dislocation in this part of the Colonial Empire, with a view to action being taken to remove these evils?

Mr. MacDonald: I am doubtful as to the value of a general inquiry of the kind suggested. In so far as the particular problems of individual Colonies are concerned, it is improbable that a further inquiry would add anything to the reports which are already in my possession. The economic situation of the West Indies is largely due to world-wide causes. This is particularly true of the sugar industry, on which these Colonies are mainly dependent, and as I stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) on nth May. the International Sugar Council is charged with the duty of seeking means of overcoming the difficulties of this industry. As regards over-population, I would invite attention to the reply which my predecessor gave to a question by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) on 23rd February.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very grave social and economic unrest and the real difficulties under which this population is suffering, is it not possible for the Government to work out some policy which will bring some hope to these starving and undernourished people?

Mr. MacDonald: A good many things are being done in various directions to improve the social and economic position in these Colonies.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has become Secretary of State for the Colonies again, give his serious consideration to the idea of sending out a commission to inquire into the social unrest and bad conditions which obtain?

Mr. MacDonald: I have already answered that question.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what organisations are being financed for the study of diseases of tropical plants in the West Indies, and at what cost; and whether he will consider an increase of expenditure on this purpose with a view to improving the position of primary producers in the West Indies and so preventing, through the payment of better wages, outbreaks of native discontent?

Mr. MacDonald: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, which receives a grant of £15,000 per annum from His Majesty's Government and contributions from the West Indian Governments (except Jamaica), has divisions of Mycology and Entomology devoted to the study of diseases and pests of tropical economic crops in the West Indies. Financial assistance has also been rendered from the Colonial Development Fund for investigational work in connection with the witchbroom disease of cacao in Trinidad, the sugarcane borer pest in the Leeward Islands, cotton pests and certain pests of limes. Four such schemes are in operation at the present time. Several West Indian Departments of Agriculture also employ scientific officers whose duties include the investigation of pests and diseases and the development and extension of control measures. In addition, the pests and diseases of crops in the West Indian area are constantly under review by the Colonial Advisory Council of Agriculture and Animal Health and special schemes, such as those indicated above, are evolved when necessity arises. The West Indian Governments also contribute to the expenditure of the Imperial Institute of Entomology and the Imperial Mycological Institute, from which institutions they

receive expert assistance in respect of entomological and plant pathological problems. I am advised that the present position in regard to the investigation of pests and diseases in the West Indies is not unsatisfactory; certain anxiety exists in regard to the damage caused by root disease of limes and the Panama and leaf diseases of bananas, but investigational work in regard to these diseases is in operation, and further expenditure does not seem to be warranted at the present time.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether more assistance can be given to the British West Indian islands in view of their present problems?

Mr. MacDonald: In so Jar as the West Indian islands have a common interest as producers of sugar, they are in receipt of substantial indirect assistance from the Exchequer. Apart from this, they are best dealt with individually; and various Colonies are in receipt of Treasury assistance towards administration, the amount of which is fixed annually after consideration of the local financial position. Assistance is also granted from the Colonial Development Fund for schemes which fall within the scope of the Act. In any case in which a Colonial Government may represent to me that further financial assistance is required, I shall be prepared to give the matter my consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who are acquainted with these islands feel that over a period of years we have not taken that general interest which we ought to have taken in their welfare; and would he be prepared to give personal examination to the past history of the islands, realising that everybody would be delighted to see their patriotic inhabitants receive more consideration from His Majesty's Government?

Captain Arthur Evans: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that several commissions composed of Members of Parliament of all parties have paid visits to these islands from time to time and have made recommendations to the Government of the day?

Mr. MacDonald: I am certain that all parties in the House are anxious that as much as possible should be done for these islands. We have to admit, however, that the causes of the distress in the islands to-day are very largely international troubles, over which the Colonial Office and the local administration have no control.

PRAEDIAL LARCENY, TRINIDAD (PUNISHMENT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the sentence of 12 lashes and six months hard labour in Port of Spain, Trinidad, on 4th May, for praedial larceny of 50 cabbages; and whether it is the policy of the Government in Trinidad that efforts should be made to cure the theft of food by flogging?

Mr. M. MacDonald: A report on this case has been received from the Acting-Governor, from which it appears that a sentence of "flogging" was passed but was commuted to 12 strokes with the birch, this sentence being duly carried out. The offender was a well-known thief and bad character with 25 previous convictions, 17 of which were for larceny. At the time of his conviction he was on "ticket-of-leave" following a sentence of two years' imprisonment for attempted larceny from a tailoring establishment. The last offence was committed within two months of his release from prison. As regards the general policy of inflicting corporal punishment for praedial larceny, I would refer to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen) on 6th April.

Mr. Creech Jones: While I am fully aware of the character of this man, may I ask the Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to implement the recommendation in the report of the Committee on Trinidad in regard to flogging as a punishment for praedial larceny after the first offence?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will read the answer to which I have referred, he will see what the policy of the Government is.

Mr. Jagger: Is not flogging for praedial larceny an abominable sentence?

JAMICA

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the report on wages in the Westmoreland sugar estate, Jamaica, submitted by the local collector of taxes, which is attached to the Collector-General's report; and will he circulate these wage rates to this House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I have seen the report, which is dated 20th May, 1937. The Collector of Taxes there stated that the wage rates in the parish of Westmoreland were 5s. per diem for artisans, 2s. 6d. per diem for praedial workers and 6s. per week for domestic workers. The House will remember that the Governor appointed last month a Commission to inquire into the rates of wages paid throughout the Colony. The Commission is still at work.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the latest figures I have been able to obtain, those for 1935, show that the wages for labourers as distinct from cane cutters average is. 6d. per day, and for women 9d. per day? Is it not time something was done to put an end to this terrible exploitation?

Mr. MacDonald: I understand the figures of the hon. Member are for 1935. The figures which I have quoted for 1937 show that there has been a considerable increase in the last two years.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference to the Commission include an inquiry into the cost of living, such as clothing, rent and fuel?

Mr. MacDonald: No doubt the Commission will take into consideration all questions which are relevant to the question of wages.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any truth in the statement generally made, that our race has gone out there and bled nearly the whole of the West Indies white?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any agricultural labourers' union is operating either in the Westmoreland sugar estate or in Jamaica generally?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no information as to whether any agricultural labourers' union is operating on the sugar estates in


Westmoreland. As to the general question of existing trade unions in Jamaica, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member on 9th May.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the abominably low rate of wages paid to these labourers are the Government in favour of their having complete freedom to organise independent trade unions in order to better their conditions?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that they have freedom to do that at present.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to clear this matter up. Do I understand that the Government lay it down that these agricultural labourers have the right to form independent trade unions?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that the law in regard to trade unions in Jamaica is approximately the same as the law in this country.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is not the president of this union safer than the late M. Tomsky?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent loans have been raised in recent years for Jamaican development purposes; and to what extent these loans have been spent upon objects of social development, such as health, housing, relief of unemployment, and upon other objects?

Mr. MacDonald: As the detailed reply to this question involves a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Under Laws Nos. 22 and 23 of 1935 the Governor is empowered to raise sums totalling £2,000,000 for public and municipal works and other purposes. The amount so far raised is £1,100,000. Of the total of £2,000,000, £135,000 is to be allocated for medical services, £100,000 for housing schemes, £250,000 for water supplies, £646,700 for roads and bridges, £100,000 for irrigation schemes, £100,000 for land settlement schemes, £100,000 for harbour works and £105,300 for school buildings. The balance is for public buildings and other works of public utility. Detailed information is not available of the actual expenditure to date, but

it will be observed that in general the whole sum has been allocated for the objects referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that when Messrs. Tate and Lyle purchased estates in Jamaica recently considerable economies in native labour employment were effected; and, as this reduction of employment, without corresponding measures of relief, was calculated to disturb the native mind in a way which could not be immediately counteracted by the beneficial works which this firm has instituted; whether any Government action was taken in respect of the immediate suffering caused by the diminution in employment?

Mr. MacDonald: since a Commission has been appointed to investigate and report on the causes of the disturbances at Frome and the steps taken by the police to deal with the disorders, and the general position regarding wages and conditions on this estate, I must await the Commission's report before expressing any opinion as to the causes contributory to the disturbances there. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that, according to recent correspondence in the Press, the company in question has not made any reduction in the number of labourers employed on its estates.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that there is no unemployment insurance for the natives, are any steps being taken in cases of unemployment to remedy this?

Mr. MacDonald: That is one of the matters which will have to await the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to deal with the bad housing conditions and social and industrial unrest in Kingston, Jamaica; and is he aware of the discontent expressed by demonstrations, meetings, and strikes now taking place in the island?

Mr. MacDonald: Approval was recently given by my predecessor for expenditure totalling £48,400 upon two schemes for the improvement of housing conditions in the Kingston area. The first was for improvement of the slum area in Smith Village, and the second for the establishment of model tenements at Trench Pen. As regards the latter part of the question,


I am aware of the situation in the Colony, but I cannot add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 9th May.

Mr. Riley: Have any steps been taken to implement proposals for expenditure of money on the improvement of housing?

Mr. MacDonald: I have already said that steps are being taken and money is being spent on improving housing in two areas in Kingston.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for a special report from the Governor concerning the discontent which is referred to in the question?

Mr. MacDonald: I have said, in reply to two or three other questions, that there is a Commission of Inquiry going into the matter at the moment.

SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that since the International Sugar Agreement was concluded sugar prices have already fallen from £6 10s. per ton to approximately £5 per ton, and that cane prices in the West Indian sugar industry will therefore probably have be be further reduced during the coming crop season; and, in view of the unfortunate effect which this reduction must have upon wages and economic circumstances generally in the West Indies, what remedial steps it is proposed to take?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware of the regrettable fall in the price of sugar to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The fall is due to the disequilibrium between supply and demand, owing to a number of causes, of which the Sino-Japanese conflict is the most important. The International Sugar Council at its recent meeting took certain steps to remedy the position, and are meeting again early in July to discuss the possibility of taking further steps.

Major Procter: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the possibility of establishing a Customs union, including the West Indies and the other Colonies, in order to get fair prices for native products?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that before we consider anything else, we must await the result of the action which the International Sugar Council has taken, and is prepared possibly to take at its next meeting.

Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be possible to have fair prices for all produce?

GOLD COAST.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action it is proposed to take on those sections of the annual report of the principal registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, in the Gold Coast Colony, which call for slum clearance and rebuilding schemes in certain important centres, and for welfare work among women and children in backward rural areas?

Mr. MacDonald: I am asking the Governor for a report, and will communicate with the hon. Member when it has been received.

WEST AFRICA (COCOA EXPORTS).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount, in weight and value, of the exports of cocoa from British West Africa during each of the last three years and for the current year to date; what steps he intends to take to meet the situation; and whether he has any further statement to make on the subject?

Mr. MacDonald: As the answer to the first part of the question involves tables of figures, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the remainder of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my predecessor on 4th May in reply to questions by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander).

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the distress in this country due to the fact that there has been a falling off in exports from West Africa which is having repercussions on the trade between this country and West Africa?

Mr. MacDonald: I understand that the position in regard to exports from West


Africa is satisfactory at the moment, and no doubt the hon. and learned Member knows that there is a commission of


Exports of Cocoa from the British West African Colonies.


Colony, etc.
1935.
1936.
1937.
1938.



Quantity in tons.
Value£
Quantity in tons.
Value£
Quantity in tons.
Value in £.
Quantity in tons.
Value in £.


Gold Coast
268,890
5,203,959
311,151
7,659,743
232,538
9,893,997
16,896
Not known









(Jan.-April)



Nigeria
88,142
1,583,827
80,513
1,997,418
103,126
3,655,873
44,190
808,495









(Jan.-March)



Sierra Leone
164
2,043
301
5,542
265
8,830
149
2,236









(Jan.-Feb.)



Total
357,196
6,789,829
391,965
9,662,703
335,929
13,558,700
—
—

COLONIES (FRANCHISE AND EDUCATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that all literate Colonial citizens should be enfranchised; and, if so, what steps are being taken to implement this principle?

Mr. MacDonald: The matter is not one on which any general policy can be laid down. Conditions differ widely in different Colonies, and the character of the franchise must necessarily vary according to local circumstances.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as we profess the principles of democracy it would be wise to demonstrate these principles to the world by applying them as soon as possible to these particular areas?

Mr. MacDonald: I would not take exception to that principle in any way.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to apply that principle?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member said "as soon as possible."

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial policy of His Majesty's Government includes the provision of universal free education for the Colonial population; and what is the approximate proportion of the natives in our African Colonies and Mandated Territories who are now receiving such education?

inquiry going into the whole question at the present time.

Following is the figures:

Mr. MacDonald: The policy of Colonial Governments aims at the provision of universal free education as soon as circumstances permit, but the House will realise that, in a large number of Colonies, many years must elapse before this object can be achieved. With regard to the second part of the question, the proportion naturally varies from territory to territory, but I understand that the average figure for all the territories is 12 per cent.

Mr. Sorensen: Considering that in some areas at least, not more than 5 per cent. of the population are receiving education, will not the Minister do something to expedite the development of education so as to demonstrate the sincerity of our democratic professions?

Mr. MacDonald: I have already said that we aim at achieving that object as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to when circumstances will permit it?

PALESTINE (TEL-AVIV AND JAFFA).

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the proposal that all income arising from harbour, wharfage, storage, and other charges in connection with the Tel-Aviv harbour undertaking are to be collected by the Government of Palestine, although the undertaking is owned by the Marine Trust and the cost of its construction and running have been defrayed out of public subscriptions not invited on a


commercial basis, no contributions whatsoever being made by the Government; and whether, in these circumstances, arrangements can be made to call the deferred conference in order to regularise the position?

Mr. M. Mac Donald: The latest information on the subject in my possession is a report dated 25th March from the High Commissioner, stating that arrangements in regard to financial procedure to be followed as between the Marine Trust Limited and the Government Departments concerned were then under negotiation. I am asking the High Commissioner for information regarding any later developments.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) who provided the funds with which to open the port of Tel-Aviv; and what assistance has been provided by the Palestine administration, in view of the situation existing at Jaffa following the rebellion;
(2) on how many occasions since 1920 the port of Jaffa has been temporarily closed owing to terrorism or internal strife; and why the port of Tel-Aviv was opened in 1936, and the relationship between the temporary Marine Trust, Limited, and the Palestine administration?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not in a position to say how often the port of Jaffa has been temporarily closed owing to political causes, but the port was virtually closed for several months during 1936 as a result of the general strike which began in April of that year. At that time certain Jewish trading interests promoted a scheme for the construction of an independent alternative port at Tel-Aviv, and the Marine Trust Limited was incorporated in 1936 to undertake these developments. It is an entirely private concern. The Government have provided no financial assistance, and approval for the construction of the port was only given on the understanding that no expenditure would fall upon the Government or upon municipal funds, and that the cost of any additional Government services would be refunded. The port has now been opened for the admission of all classes of goods and the landing of passengers and the

Government of Palestine have made arrangements for the provision of Customs and other necessary services.

Mr. Williams: As the port of Jaffa was closed owing to a strike and private persons found the money to provide this temporary port, which the Government suggest will have to go out of existence later on, on what ground of equity or fair play can the Government now claim to collect all the dues from this port?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think they are making that claim. They are making the claim that they should be compensated, in effect, for losses which they have sustained, but the whole matter is under negotiation now. At least, I have not received information yet regarding the ending of the negotiations between the Government and the company. I have asked for a report, and perhaps my hon. Friend would await that information.

Mr. Williams: In the meantime, would the right hon. Gentleman insist that those persons who put up this money, without any hope of securing any return or any profit from it, will have returned to them by the Palestine Administration at least such moneys as they have expended?

Mr. MacDonald: I could not add anything to what I have said until I get further information.

Captain Heilgers: Is the port of Tel Aviv any better than that of Jaffa, which, I am told, is listed at Lloyd's as the worst port in the world?

FIJI (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the working of the new constitution in Fiji?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The new constitution was introduced in June of last year, since when there have been three sessions of the Legislative Council. It is rather early to speak definitely of the results achieved; but so far as I can judge, the constitution is working satisfactorily. If the hon. Member desires, I shall be happy to send him copies of the minutes of the first two sessions. The minutes of the third session have not yet reached me.

TANGANYIKA (GERMANS).

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Germans resident in Tanganyika without known employment or visible means of support?

Mr. M. MacDonald: According to my latest information, the number is five.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Does my right hon. Friend know whether any of these five are carrying on Nazi propaganda in Tanganyika?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no reason to suppose that this propaganda is being carried on by these five, but I cannot answer the question without notice which would give me time to make inquiries.

Miss Wilkinson: If they receive secret funds from the Nazi organisation, do those secret funds come under the heading of "visible means of support"?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

STEEL AND TIN PLATE.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is taking any steps to make use of the steel works and tin industry in West Wales, from Port Talbot to Llanelly, which have closed down owing to depression, for the purpose of producing material for Defence purposes?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am advised that no shortage of tin plate is being experienced in relation to the Defence programme and that the production of steel also is at present ample for the needs of the programme. In these circumstances it is unnecessary so far as Defence purposes are concerned to take any steps to increase present supplies.

PIG IRON.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether his attention has been drawn to the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. duty on pig iron by the Import Duties Advisory Committee; what effect this duty on a semiraw material so largely required for munitions is likely to have on prices and supplies for his Department; and how will existing contracts be affected?

Sir T. Inskip: My attention has been drawn to this duty. I do not myself

place orders for munitions, but I am advised by the Departments directly concerned that the duty will have no effect on home prices, and that it is not expected to have any adverse effect on supplies or on existing contractual arrangements.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that it is wise to restrict pig iron coming into this country, and thereby to make it more available to competing countries?

Sir T. Inskip: That is hardly a question to be addressed to me. I am answering a question as to the effect of this duty upon supplies for Defence purposes, but there has been a considerable demand from many quarters for this duty, of which probably the hon. Member is aware.

Mr. Peat: Can my right hon. Friend conceive of anything which is more liable to upset the ultimate success of the rearmament programme than the damping down of blast furnaces in this country because of imports of foreign materials?

Sir T. Inskip: Obviously it is of importance that blast furnaces should not be damped down when the demand for pig iron is so large.

WAR-TIME SERVICE (ENROLMENT).

Captain A. Evans: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what method of co-ordination is in force to ensure that in appealing for volunteer man-power the Defence Departments operate on a carefully considered and agreed policy; and whether, in view of the necessity of the Regular and Territorial Army and Air Forces being brought up to the required strength in the shortest possible time, he will state what steps are taken to prevent civil authorities in general, and police authorities in particular, encouraging the enlistment of men for war-time services who are of military age and medically fit, and who would otherwise be available and required for the active Fighting Forces of the Crown in the event of hostilities, and especially at rates of pay over three times in excess of Territorials employed in anti-aircraft Defence?

Sir T. Inskip: The co-ordination of the needs of the Defence Departments is undertaken by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on which


the Defence Departments and the Home Office are represented. Firms are advised as to the enlistment of skilled and key men in any of the Defence Forces, or as to their enrolment in other services of national importance. Every effort is made to secure that men of the ages which would most urgently be required for the active Defence -Forces are not accepted for duties that could be performed by older men.

Captain Evans: Can my right hon. Friend inform me whether the representatives of the Defence Departments agreed to the appeal that was made recently by the Commissioner of Police for comparatively young men of military age and medically fit to enlist in the Special Constabularly or Special War Reserve, and in view of the urgent necessity for bringing the Territorial Army up to the required strength in the least possible time, will he not encourage men of this type to give first preference to the Territorial Army?

Sir T. Inskip: There is another question on the Order Paper about the appeal for men for the constabulary. With regard to special constables they are not, of course, exempted from other service merely by reason of their enrolment in that force.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole position in a state of chaos?

Captain Evans: I wish to give notice that I would like to raise this matter on the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess.

KENYA (CATTLE, COMPULSORY SALES).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a petition signed by members of the Wakamba tribe, in Kenya, protesting against the compulsory selling of their cattle at low prices to the canning factory near Athi River station, in Kenya; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that this petition was addressed to my predecessor through the Governor. It has not yet been received in the Colonial Office, and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this petition, which implies that the Government are compelling natives to sell their cattle to a privately-owned firm at very low prices instead of going to the ordinary market and getting the market prices for them?

Mr. MacDonald: Naturally I shall give careful consideration to anything that is said in this petition.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not monstrous that such a thing should be done? It is as bad as the Marketing Boards in this country.

NORTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (I) whether he is taking any steps to improve the defective medical service for natives as reported by the commission appointed to enquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia;
(2) whether he has considered the report of the Commission to inquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia relating to the backward condition of native education; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to questions by him on nth May. It will be appreciated that the examination by the Northern Rhodesia Government of the numerous recommendations made in the Commission's report must necessarily take time.

Mr. Paling: As some of these proposals were indicated years ago, particularly those with regard to education—some of them as much as six or seven years ago —and nothing has been done, is it necessary that we should now wait for somebody else to make some further recommendations?

Mr. MacDonald: All that we are awaiting are the comments of the Government responsible for the administration of this territory on the very important and serious recommendations which have been made.

Mr. Paling: How long is that likely to take?

Mr. MacDonald: I must say I think it will take some time. The report has only reached the authorities in Northern Rhodesia, and, naturally, they will require a considerable period in which to examine the whole position very carefully.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the statement in the report of the Commission to inquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia relating to native labour at the copper mines, to the effect that the system of compensation for accidents does not seem to be a satisfactory one as compared with that in force on the Rand; and whether he proposes to take any steps to improve the system?

Mr. MacDonald: A draft Model Workmen's Compensation Ordinance for the Colonial Dependencies in East and West Africa is now under consideration by the Governments concerned, including the Government of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the long period which has elapsed since this matter was raised, is it not about time that something was done?

Mr. MacDonald: We shall receive the comments of the Governments concerned as soon as possible.

Mr. Paling: In view of the fact that all these proposals of medical services, native education, compensation and the rest have been recommended years ago, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do to compel some method being found of putting them into operation?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a much wider question than the question on the Paper.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the proceedings at the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I understand that if an opportunity presented itself to-morrow night, this question might be raised, when, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I shall have an opportunity of making a statement.

OIL FROM COAL (FALMOUTH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. Assheton (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision on the recommendations of the Falmouth Committee?

Sir J. Simon: His Majesty's Government have decided to accept the recommendations contained in the published report of the Falmouth Committee. Provision is accordingly being made in the Finance Bill to give effect to the recommendation for the extension for a period of 12 years of a guaranteed preference of 8d. per gallon on home-produced motor spirit and diesel oil for use in road vehicles, subject to the adjustments recommended by the Committee. The acceptance of the recommendation concerning an extension of the scope of the tests on low-temperature carbonisation plants carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is subject to consideration of the practicable limits to which such tests can be carried.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before the Government make up their minds finally about the major issues raised in this report, will there be an opportunity for a discussion of the matter in this House; and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there is a large measure of opinion in the country that the conclusions in the Falmouth Committee's report were based upon evidence which was far too narrow and was heard in private, and that others had not an opportunity of being heard?

Sir J. Simon: As to the general question of a further discussion, I would prefer that to be put down and, no doubt, it could be considered. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that the announcement which I have made as to the provisions which will be included in the Finance Bill is one that ought to be very sympathetically received by those interested in British coal.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Government refrain from making up their minds finally to accept these conclusions on the larger issues until there has been a discussion?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the Resolution cover motor fuels made in this country from materials other than coal?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. That was not what the Falmouth Committee recommended.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill.

Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is to implement some of the recommendations of the recent Committee of Inquiry into Civil Aviation which was presided over by Lord Cadman. The Bill provides for an increase in the aggregate sum that is provided by the State for the development of civil air transport, and its general effect is to increase from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000 the maximum sums which may be paid in any financial year under agreements for subsidising air transport made by the Secretary of State for Air. I hope that in this way we may be able to begin a fresh chapter in the history of civil aviation. It is a sequel to many others written by our predecessors, many of them distinguished in this new field, from whose work undoubtedly we are obtaining many benefits to-day. I think most hon. Members who are acquainted with this subject will agree with me when I say that there have been undoubtedly many difficulties in the past and that the work of the pioneers had slow beginnings and many setbacks. I would suggest that, perhaps, the original idea of civil aviation was that it was to fly by itself, but the fact remains that everywhere and by all countries civil aviation is subsidised to-day, and I do not think there is any doubt, whatever method we may have in mind for dealing with it, that more money is needed if this country is to occupy its proper position in relation to this important matter.
Undoubtedly the wishes expressed by this House are fulfilled. The additional financial assistance to be given on the routes outside Europe will be approximately £1,000,000, and the greater part of this sum will be concentrated on Empire routes. The emphasis that we are thus making on the linking up of the centre to a vast and scattered Empire needs no justification. We desire particularly to make a general improvement on the Empire services by speeding up the provision of additional services and,

I hope, improved aircraft, in conjunction with companies of the Dominions, by extra services to Canada, and by the development of the Australia—New Zealand services. I may say that we have been discussing this matter with the respective Governments, and we hope to take it further in discussion with the Australian Ministers and with the representatives of the New Zealand Government. There are also the trans-Pacific project and the West Indies and other connecting services with the Empire, and also the local services in the island itself. Another object to which this money is to be devoted—and again I hope this is one which will secure general agreement—is the necessity, in the interests of British civil aviation and our national prestige, that a first-class service should be established between London and the principal capitals of Europe, and we propose to devote some £400,000 to these services. Daily British services are already in operation to Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, with a daily summer service to Basle, and Rome is already served by the Empire route, but it is now planned to establish daily services additionally to Berlin, Amsterdam, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Oslo, and Lisbon, and to establish an all-the-year-round service to Switzerland. By these means few of the capitals of Europe will thus be outside the projected network, and I hope we shall be able to extend that even further still.
I need hardly tell the House that, in order to accomplish these matters which I have mentioned, we shall have to enter into a number of commercial and international agreements, and this must obviously take time, but it is the desire of the Government that British aircraft shall be utilised 100 per cent. for this purpose, as indeed on every route flown by British operators. I may say in that connection that it is well that the House should know that British aircraft are not yet fully available for these purposes. I would like to tell the House of a promising type of medium-size, all-metal air liner which is now under construction and which we hope will be on the market in the early part of next year. The question of financial assistance in the development of this machine is now being considered in order to enable it to be brought forward and marketed at the very earliest oppor-


tunity and at a good competitive price. The Ministry have also, after consulting the two main subsidised companies, invited definite proposals from constructors for a heavy machine capable, for example, of carrying 10 passengers for 1,800 miles and suitable for direct flights to such places as Berlin, Copenhagen, and Lisbon. There is further under consideration a landplane to succeed in due course to the "Albatross" for longdistance flights such as the North and South Atlantic or to Alexandria.
I would also like to say a word about the inland services, in which I was very much interested when I was at the Post Office. We propose to devote some £100,000 to the inland services, and we hope thus to help those companies which are suffering losses to establish themselves on a sound commercial footing and to enable all of them to press on with their services with even greater enterprise. The Government have therefore decided, in view of the special circumstances of the moment and with particular reference to the Defence situation, that a sum not exceeding £100,000 in the first year, and diminishing progressively in the subsequent four years, shall be earmarked out of the increased subsidy limit of £3,000,000 for the purpose of subsidising internal air lines. I want to make it clear that this assistance will be given on the clear understanding that the companies should endeavour to establish themselves on a paying basis before the end of the period, and that no further assistance of this kind can be looked for after that date. All companies actually operating the internal services at the present date will be eligible for consideration, subject to their entering into suitable agreements under the Air Navigation Act. They themselves, for instance, accept as a liability the appointment of Government directors and of a maximum subsidy for each individual company. The amounts of such subsidies will depend on such conditions as the number of approved British aircraft employed and the efficiency of services operated on routes licensed by the licensing authority and approved for subsidy by the Air Ministry, having regard to the commercial possibilities of such routes. It will also be provided that so far as practicable 75 per cent. of the pilots employed shall be enrolled in the Air Force Reserve under arrangements similar to

those made under other subsidy agreements.

Mr. Stephen: Does that mean that there will be a direct service in future from London to Glasgow?

Sir K. Wood: I will make inquiries as to that. Clause 2 gives power to the Secretary of State for Air to pay out of public funds the salaries and expenses of the licensing authority of air transport and commercial flying under the Air Navigation Act of 1936, and Sub-section (2) corrects an omission from Section 5 of that Act, and provides that the licence fees received by the licensing authority shall be paid into the Exchequer. That, briefly, is a statement of the objects and aims of the Bill. I need hardly say more than a word or two upon-the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by hon. Members opposite. The Amendment calls for some measure of nationalisation:
 In view of the national and international importance of civil aviation, the transport by air of passengers and goods should be made a State service.
I am always interested in the projects of hon. Members opposite, but I always like to see what they do when they themselves have the responsibility. It is very interesting to note that in fact, so far from nationalisation being attempted in those far-off days, the first agreement with Imperial Airways was made by Lord Thomson, Secretary of State for Air in the Socialist administration of that time. It is also interesting to observe that so far did hon. Members opposite fall from grace when again they were in office that the old subsidy, paid annually, was fixed by legislation in 1930 under the second Socialist administration at a figure of £1,000,000. So I commend perhaps rather more what that have done in practice than what they are advocating in theory this afternoon. At any rate I express the hope that in ways I have indicated this afternoon we shall do what I think is so necessary in the interest of this country, and that is to improve the position of civil aviation so that it may be in all respects as worthy of this country as is our Mercantile Marine to-day.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Montague: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end


of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
 in view of the national and international importance of civil aviation, the transport by air of passengers and goods should be made a State service, and this House, therefore, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which increases the already heavy subsidy to inefficient private enterprise.
The case for the policy laid down in the Amendment is divided into two parts: First, a consideration of the need of the industry that we are discussing; and, secondly, the principle itself of subsidising enterprises otherwise left to private ownership. Regarding the industry itself, in the very circumstances of the case that industry is a monopoly. It has been recognised as a monopoly from the beginning, because of the inevitable development of aviation and the nature of the industry; and the foundation of Imperial Airways, to which the Minister referred, was a result of that recognition. I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Labour Governments. It is perfectly true that in 1924 we carried out what had already been begun as a result of the Handley Committee, and when in 1930 it was a question of carrying on civil aviation efficiently without any opportunity of nationalising that industry, we had other things to do and not much opportunity of doing what we wanted in the circumstances, and we did increase the subsidy. But that is not an argument for increasing the subsidy now to £3,000,000.
The monopolistic character of the industry is borne out by the draft Order in Council which will be discussed in due course. Let me refer to it in order to emphasise the point that I am making. The case for nationalisation rests upon the inherent monopoly of civil aviation. The draft Order says:
 In exercising their discretion to grant or to refuse a licence, and their discretion to attach conditions to any licence, the licensing authority shall have regard to the coordination and development of air services generally, with the object of ensuring the most effective service to the public while avoiding uneconomic overlapping, and generally to the interests of the public. In particular the licensing authority shall have regard to the following matters: The existence of other air services in the area, the possibilities of air transport in that area, the degree of efficiency and regularity of the air services, continuity, regularity of operation, frequency, punctuality, reasonableness of

charges and the type of aircraft proposed to be used.
Then the licensing authority, in attaching conditions to its licences, has to make reference to the places between which passengers and goods are to be carried, intermediate landings, the observance of a schedule of services, the maximum fares, and so forth.
So I think it can be agreed that the industry of civil transport is recognised by the Government as a virtual monopoly. But air monopoly or transport monopoly is rather different from any other kind of monopoly, even a monopoly of land. There can be no private property in the medium used; there are no fences in space. The medium is universal, without the definition that coastlines make of the seas. Therefore, it is necessarily subject to control, and, as the Minister said in his speech, that is a question involving international order, navigation laws and other considerations which belong to the respective States and to the aggregate of world States, and it is also bound up with military and defensive considerations. We subsidise shipping companies but there is no monopoly on the high seas: the high seas are open to all who desire to sail upon them. We talk about the "freedom of the seas" and boast about maintaining it. But there can be no freedom of the air in any comparable sense.
Commercial aviation is by its very nature monopolistic, and it would be, however much subsidies might be divided up. I want to make that point clear, and incidentally to remark that the avalanche of criticism of Air Ministry subsidies and so forth that usually comes from hon. Members on the other side of the House is notably absent. I imagine that hon. Members are satisfied with the £100,000 that they are getting for distribution to internal air line companies. But there may be air routes and zones divided up; they may be marked off and the monopoly shared by separate concerns without altering the fact. I stress that point, because I want to make it plain that it is not our case that one or two companies get public money while others are left out. They all of them share the spoils. I do not know how many are going to do so; the number will still be objectionable, the monopoly will still exist and it will still be a private monopoly. The discrimination strengthens our case for public ownership and supports our claim that where


monopoly is the essence of the service itself it should not be subsidised while it is in private hands. Government aid to firms operating for profit is illogical and contrary to public interest.
So far the argument has been independent of the general case for public ownership. One form of debating tactics is to anticipate objections. I shall employ that form because from the proceedings of this House, as well as from many other sources, it is possible not only to excavate arguments against public ownership brought out in discussions from time to time, and to deal with them in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be repeated, but also to recover and resurrect useful items of evidence, such for instance as the following quotation from a speech made in this House:
 So long as railways are in private hands they might be used for immediate profit. In the hands of the State, however, it might be wise or expedient to run them at a loss if they develop industry or place the trader in close contact with his market and stimulate development. We cannot organise the great questions of land settlement, new industries and the extension of production unless the State has control of the means of transportation.
The speaker was talking, not about war conditions, but of reconstruction after the War. It was the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who used those words. That quotation from a speech, certainly made a good number of years ago, is relevant and brings out one inconsistency of our opponents, in so far that when it is required to argue that public enterprise does not pay, the expediency mentioned, namely the development of industry irrespective of accountancy profit and loss, is entirely ignored, but when the issue is such as the present one under discussion, then industrial development becomes important and the State has not only to make up deficiencies by acknowledged and direct subsidy, but the principle is accepted without any question whatever.
It is rather interesting to note that that kind of argument is used by our opponents. When it is done in the Socialist way—the question of making up losses—they talk about loss, and the experiment is accounted a failure, but if it is done in the Capitalist way it is the encouragement of imperial communications or new industries or what not. An example of that kind of argument was

the Canadian Merchant Air Service to the West Indies. In order to keep the West Indian Islands from falling into what was called "the economic orbit of the United States," the service was run by the Canadian Government unremuneratively, and deliberately so. It was an indirect subsidy designed explicitly in the interests of Canadian trade. Tories in Canada and in this country would not hesitate to ascribe the technical loss to the failure of Socialism while they supported subsidies at home. Another example is that of the subsidies to the McBrayne Steamship Company which was running so-called uneconomic services to the Western Isles of Scotland. Numerous examples of this method of controversy are available. In connection with Canadian shipping in general, the "Manchester Guardian" said that it saved exporters from the Dominions from the extortion of foreign ocean freight rates to an extent that outweighed the deficit by millions.
In the case of Australian shipping, Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia. sold the Commonwealth Line to a private, company. He said that it seemed to him that it had more than justified itself and had been of inestimable benefit to the country. He gave an illustration. The State was carrying Australian wheat to London at £10 per ton, while British shipowners asked £13 and foreign owners up to £15. Producers had saved £2,000,000 a year by the operation of the line against the £500,000 deficit. The shipping companies got to work, however, mendacious propaganda proved effective, and Mr. Bruce was compelled to sell the Commonwealth Line to Lord Kylsant.

Major Procter: Was it not a fact that the Australian ships were sold because the trade union workers simply bled the Government?

Mr. Montague: The steamship workers were paid on the same terms as British steamship workers. The terms were settled by international agreement. Mr. Bruce himself admitted that the line had been used in the way of an indirect subsidy to the advantage of Australian business. It was the shipping combine that compelled Mr. Bruce to sell this line to Lord Kylsant. We know what happened afterwards. Tories come down to this House and talked about the failure of Socialism. The money that was supposed to be paid was not paid in full,


and the Australian Government had to realise upon their securities, while farmers, graziers and importers paid up and the conditions of the workers were left to the tender mercies of general world conditions.
The Amendment that I am moving has been described by the Press as a Socialist Amendment. As a matter of fact, hon. Members on the other side, not to mention the Press, really know very little about Socialism. I am prepared to accept the term, although it is not quite correct. This form of collectivisation is not Socialism; it is a stage towards Socialism, and that is why I say hon. Members do not usually know much about the subject when they talk about the failure or otherwise of Socialism. Socialism now has nothing to do with the question of profit or loss. Socialism is the organisation of the means of providing services co-operatively. What the community needs it provides. There is profit with bad service and loss with good service under Capitalism, but under Socialism the words "profit and loss" mean nothing in reference to services and transactions both ends of which are joined up in co-operative production and consumption. Hon. Members might regard this is an abstract point in connection with this Bill, but I refer to it because that argument is accepted in the very Bill under discussion.
What are these subsidies but another way of saying that it does not matter whether the industry pays or not if the industry is necessary? When an argument against Socialism is required loss is called the failure of Socialism, but here is an industry which does not pay and it calls upon the Government for subsidies. That is all right as long as the subsidies are paid to private concerns in the interest of private profit. According to this Measure it is considered just as economic to cover costs partly by taxation if the commodity supplied is one in general use, or the development is one of common advantage as to fix price rates at this and that level. If the capital value of social economies already established were estimated, the result would fall not far short of one-third of the total capital worth of this country. On the other hand, if there is no general advantage, by what right is the nation called

upon to subsidise any enterprise whatever? Let us admit that flying is a new industry that ought to be encouraged and developed to the common advantage. That must be the point, since I think it must be obvious that it cannot be a question of general use. We cannot all go flying, and, as a matter of fact, very few people do actually fly.
I said once before in reference to the Maybury Committee's report that when that report said that a certain project supplied the needs of 14,000,000 of our population, it was talking unadulterated nonsense. It does not supply the needs of 1,400 of our population. I have never seen the public advantage of providing flying facilities at public expense to business men engaged in a competition among themselves and for purposes of that competition. The position is different with regard to foreign trade. We either get it or we do not, but all internal trade is within the country. We are going to spend out of the increased subsidy in one year £100,000 for the development of internal lines. I would like the Minister to tell us why. What particular advantage is there in developing internal lines —I mean to the public? There is plenty of advantage to shareholders and people with special interests in flying, but, from the public point of view, what advantage is there?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Nonsense.

Mr. Montague: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of showing why it is nonsense. I am asking what special advantage there is to the industry of flying in giving subsidies to private companies. If that argument is nonsense, I should be pleased to know why. I do not know how much in the long run the internal lines are to be subsidised, or what arrangements are to be made under the contract with Imperial Airways, but there is much less reason for subsidising internal lines than there is for subsidising Imperal or foreign lines. If it is a question of ultimate military importance, I suggest it should be put upon the proper Vote so that we may know where we stand upon that issue. In any event, we take our stand on the principle that what is good enough for subsidisation is good enough for ownership. The suggestion is sure to be made—and I can see the Under-Secretary getting ready to make it, because I remember his attitude towards


the Government upon the question of the Air Ministry muddle—that there is inconsistency in demanding the public ownership of civil aviation when we have been the foremost in criticism of Government administration and condemnatory of Air Ministry muddle, in which the hon. and gallant Member has joined us.
Apart from the question whether there has been muddle as a result of outside interference controlled from a distance— muddle as a result of meddle—there is the consideration that there is nothing like the fierce light of criticism focussed in this House able to be directed to private enterprise. We do not propose a rigid departmentalism. As servants of the State occupying, with as much distinction and honour as generals, admirals and air marshals, positions of comparable authority, there is no reason why efficient leaders of productive industry and, as in this case, operative transport, should not have responsibility and opportunities of initiative expanded and not contracted. It is too widely assumed that public ownership is necessarily bound up with red tape and circumlocution. I am inclined to think that most business firms of any magnitude are as much locked up in routine as any Government Department. The Assistant Postmaster-General will agree with that. The argument that inefficiency in ordinary business—and there is plenty of it—concerns only shareholders who risk their money simply will not hold water. Inefficiency in industry leads to increased industry costs, injured trade, unemployment and sometimes commercial panic. If the Tite Barnacles encumber the administrative ground, still they must be swept away, as they have been in many Socialist corporations up and down the country. The idea that representative organisation is bound to be incompetent in the nature of things cannot be accepted. The late Lord Melchett said in this Chamber on one occasion:
I do contend that it is unreasonable to lay down the general principle that it is impossible for any great department, welt-equipped, well-staffed and well-managed, to do its work with as great intelligence as private contractors.
When he was asked why he did not hand over his own business to a Government Department, he said that he would if he were put at the head of it. That reply is significant of the fact that it is not true Socialism of which intelligent people are

afraid, from that angle, at any rate; it is the false notion that business is to be taken out of the hands of people qualified to conduct it and turned over to elected incapables. We do not propose to do that, at any rate, with air transport. When comparisons are drawn to show whether public ownership, or public control, is a failure or not, they must not be fallacious ones. Like must be compared with like. Inconveniences are put up with normally in one country that would not be tolerated in another. Promptitude is not always regarded as a virtue. I have recently had some experiences of that abroad. Public services, like any other services, must naturally conform to the ordinary tenour of a people's way. On the other hand, we are not without impressive support for our contention that, on the whole, public service is at least as good as private service, and in many cases superior.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of Order. Is it in accordance with the traditions of this House that hon. Members should read every word of their speeches?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member is doing more than other hon. Members do.

Mr. Montague: In any case, the allegation is not true. The interruption is an indication of the pressure of the argument. One thing which I desire to do is to keep to the point I am making. Messrs. Selfridge and Company said a year or two ago:
 We have had experience both in America and upon the Continent of systems controlled both privately and by the State, and without the slightest hesitation do we award the palm for all round satisfactoriness to the telephones of London.
A London newspaper said:
If we apply the great and abiding test of the functioning of its utility services New York will not stand comparison with London. Its telephones are the last word in antiquity and inconvenience.
I have pointed out that collectivism has made extraordinary strides in this country. The principle is well established. May I be allowed to say, further, for it is of significant importance, that the collectivism of the type advocated in this Amendment is the constitutional approach to Socialism proper, which is as inevitable as anything in this world. I am no supporter of any other approach, but the


people who are the strength and core of the working class of this country are well aware of the fact that what economic progress has been made for them has been made through public services and inroads upon private exploitation. In this new industry of commercial aviation, which is not as yet encrusted with accumulated privileges and interests to the same extent as other industries—it is an amazing thing, for example, that one person can sell half of an important city like Cardiff—we have a useful opportunity, and I stress the word "useful," of adding to the collectivist structure. Subsidies are not in themselves unsocialistic, because they can be regarded as a co-operative charge, just as municipal undertakings of a so-called unremunerative type are, and just as this Measure I is subsidising private concerns of an un-remunerative character; but subsidies to private companies without effective control, without ownership, without tangible interests, even, have no relation to proper democracy and no reasonable relation to constitutional practice.

4.35 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I should like, first, to congratulate the new Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary upon their appointments. From every point of view there could be no two persons better fitted for those posts. The Secretary of State is well equipped for dealing with industry in many ways, and the Under-Secretary I certainly congratulate upon his knowledge and upon the interest he has taken, especially, in civil aviation. They are, however, both new Ministers, and therefore it is rather difficult for us to put many questions to them or to expect them to say very much to-day. This Bill is the outcome of the Cadman report; its explanatory memorandum makes that clear; but we feel strongly that the Cadman Committee, whose report was one of the most expeditiously produced which we have ever had, cannot have gone fully into the whole subject, and we do expect that the new Ministers will really examine the whole question of civil aviation and not be content to be tied by the Cadman report. Many results have come from it and I should like to ask a question regarding Newcastle Allied Airways, an air line which has done a service in the past,

especially in the matter of its Scandinavian contract. I understand the difficulty which it now has in getting a subsidy arises from the fact that it is not specifically mentioned in the Cadman report.
I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will tell us that the Government are not bound by the Cadman report and that they will go into the whole question of civil aviation in this country and see that we really do get what we need, which is more co-ordination and greater opportunities for new lines to expand. We ought not to leave civil aviation tied to the old lines which have received subsidies in the past. Hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway on this side are keen on the subject of Socialism, and I have great sympathy with them in their view that when public money is given to private enterprise there ought to be some control over how that money is spent. It is a practice from which we are departing in too many instances, and this case is one of the most blatant. I admit that agriculture has received enormous subsidies, but agriculture is an enormous industry, and it cannot be said that it is in the hands of a few individual profit-making concerns; but this new industry is starting almost on subsidy lines and although I am not saying that it has not some rights in that respect it has very small right to continue as a private industry in a capitalist country unless it can justify itself up to the hilt as a private industry.
There is a great danger of the vested interests in Imperial Airways and various other companies which happened to "get in on the ground floor," if you like to put it that way, being able to push out any new undertakings which come along. We cannot defend private enterprise unless new undertakings come into it and the public are given a proper service. I do not agree with the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I do not agree with subsidies, and, secondly, I do not agree with the idea of State control over a new industry which is to provide a public service. It may come to it later, when, perhaps, the industry has grown up; but we do not want it to become a vested interest owing to its subsidies and to run the risk of not securing that progress which we expect to get under private enterprise. We do not want Ministers to be bound entirely by the


Cadman report, but to regard the Cadman report as a warning of what the public feels regarding the way that private enterprise is running these air lines, depending in many cases upon subsidies and not making the progress for which we have a right to look.

4.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I should very much like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Air. We have seen him grow up from an Under-Secretary and become a Cabinet Minister, and go on up the scale until now he is in the air. This is a great ascension, and I hope that he will not end in the heaven which is at the end of the passage, but long remain with us in this House to look after this most important side of our national work. I wish, also, to offer my very sincere congratulations to the Under-Secretary, because he has shown himself extremely knowledgeable on this subject, and has always leavened his criticism of the Government and their policy with good temper and great knowledge, and I am glad to see that the old tradition of English life is being maintained and that those who criticise have now got to do the job themselves.
We are speaking, really, to an Amendment moved so very ably, I thought, by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). One can divide the extreme Socialists from the extreme reactionary Tory on this question of nationalisation. There is a big gulf between the nationalisation of children and the running of the Army by private enterprise. I got into considerable trouble with my own party by coming down on the side of the State over the question of electricity. I was very badly received when the grid was put up, but that was one of those lovely compromises such as we see in this country between private enterprise and nationalisation, which is of the essence of the English character, and I believe that something along those lines is going to happen here and be an example to other countries.
On the particular point before us I have no special bias one way or the other, but I would only point out that we are still in a very early stage of the development of civil aviation." If it were a question of taking over something which was well

established, there would be much more justice in my hon. Friend's argument, but before civil aviation can come to depend upon itself it has a tremendous lot to learn, such as how to produce itself cheaply and how to run cheaply, and I believe that its development will best come about under the fire of the competition which is the feature of private enterprise, until at last will come the timely when it can be made to pay of itself. it is also to be noted that in its development it will not be building up something physical which the State will eventually have to buy out at vast outlay. There will be no great tracts of land to buy, because the aerodromes belong to the nation; certainly there will be the organisation; but what we are doing, really is creating a perishable article, because machines do not last very long. Although I am not in favour of the nationalisation of aerial transport at present, that industry is one of those borderline cases which in a dozen or so years the State might be justified in taking over.
I should very much like to make a plea, which I have made before in this House and shall go on making, for the development of the technical side of civil aviation. We are in the difficulty that if you try to produce industrially something for civil aviation you have a very limited market, whereas if you produce something for the military side you have an enormous market. That is what is happening with regard to the compression-ignition engine. If you were to spend £200,000 or £300,000 developing an engine of that type there would be a very small market for it, because it would interest only the civil operators, but if you developed a new petrol engine you could sell it galore. We have to lag behind in the things which are important to a successful civil aviation. How are we to get over that difficulty? Can my hon. and gallant Friend assure me that what was recommended by the Cadman Report will be implemented and that some of the money that we are voting now for the general advancement for civil aviation will be used in experimenting and in developing engines of this kind?
Nothing is more important to civil aviation than the question of freedom from fire. You have only to see, as I have done so many times, my friends struggling to get out through the flames of a crashed machine. It is no use saying that it is


only the burning of a corpse. This fluid which flashes into fire is too dangerous. It may be necessary for the military side, but it is not necessary for the civil side, and the position remains what it is, only because there has been no commercial incentive to produce this engine. If this country can show imagination—we are doing so by granting this big sum of money for civil aviation—and can develop a successful compression-ignition engine, English civil aviation, run by Diesel engines—if that is to be the future engine for civil aviation—will be supreme throughout the world. It will be ahead of everybody in the world and will be patronised by everybody because it will be safer than any other line. That is a development to which I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give some attention in his speech to-day. Here we are, taxpayers, and we want to see the money we spend produce a civil aviation that shall be the best and safest in the modern world. These little bits of England that visit the far corners of the earth must be technically unrivalled. I hope that we shall have an answer from my hon. and gallant Friend on this point.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) about making the controversy of State control or private enterprise into an ideological issue transfused with political prejudice. It ought to be regarded as an issue of practical politics and common sense, and it is on that ground that we advocate the increasing nationalisation and State ownership of these industries. Both the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) were a little out of fine in what they said about State control over a new enterprise. Within the last few years there has been an outstanding example of successful development of a new sphere of Governmental activity about which even less was known at the time it came under State control than is known to-day about the aeroplane. I refer to broadcasting. I do not think any Member of this House would be prepared to allow broadcasting to revert to the competition of private enterprise. It is frequently stated that people will not give of their best if

they are working for the State, but that is a fallacy which even those who speak it do not believe. I have here a quotation from something I was reading the other day by Lord Baldwin:
 The highest form of human altruism has been inspired by patriotism. Not only among soldiers and sailors, but scholars, engineers and business men, service of their country has been the deepest motive of their work.
That sentiment does not fit in very well with the argument that has been used against the development of social ownership and control. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Wallasey that if hon. Members had paid close attention to what was said by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench they would have found much to remove misconceptions from their minds.
I was really astonished at the introduction given by the Secretary of State for Air to the proposals of the Bill, new as he is to his office. He spoke for only a few minutes, he said practically nothing about the Cadman Report, he gave us merely a rough outline of the Clauses of the Bill and he concluded by making a debating point against this party, alleging that we had not carried out the policy advocated in our Amendment when we were in office. That is the kind of point which is always made when the Conservative Government are introducing proposals of this kind. In other words, in the short time in which the Labour party held office they did not reverse the whole direction of our industrial machine. I regard that rather as a compliment. If we had attempted in such a short space of time to nationalise every sphere of activity that came under our legislative attention, or to impose our programme upon it, we should soon have landed the country into that disaster which is so often foretold by hon. Members opposite. They base their prophecy on the kind of argument which the new Secretary of State for Air gave us in the House this afternoon.
Although there has been a nominal departure from the principle under which Imperial Airways was made the chosen instrument by the Government for the development of civil aviation, it is only a nominal departure, because the monopoly has really been broken down in respect of only a few internal air lines where the development of civil aviation is immeasurably more difficult than upon


the longer trans-oceanic and oversea routes. It is true that one other company has been associated with Imperial Airways and has been in receipt of the same subsidy, and it can be taken for certain that before many years, if not many months, have passed, those two companies will be one. I would remind the House of the state of this so-called chosen instrument when the Government took it over. In 1924, Imperial Airways was first formed for a sum of £50,000 in cash and £100,000 in shares. Shortly afterwards, on the strength of a subsidy promised by the Government, the company made a public issue of £500,000. The prospectus at that time made an estimate of profits, not of £50,000 or £60,000, but with that precision which generally lends verisimilitude to prospectuses, made an estimate of profit of £53,000. As a matter of fact, in the first year the company suffered a loss of about £15,000.
From that time the capital remained the same until a short time ago, when there was a large issue of capital. Today we find, looking back over the financial history of this concern, that it has been made the subject of considerable financial manipulation and speculation; that its shares have fluctuated in price between is. and 63s.; that the dividends have not been maintained on any continuous policy, having gone up one year, down the next and up the next, culminating last year in the payment by this subsidised company, which has never earned a profit without a subsidy, of a dividend of 7 per cent., and a bonus of 2 per cent. on what is practically a gilt-edged security. Notice that during the history of this company, the Government purchased the assets which went to form the company for £50,000 cash and £100,000 in shares, and that at various times since that date the Government's broker could have stepped into the market and purchased the whole concern, allowing for a small depreciation, for a sum of £20,000 or £30,000. For a prolonged period that sum would have purchased the whole of the assets of the chosen instrument of the development of civil aviation. Much has happened since those years 1924–27.
Having trespassed on the patience of the House in going back upon that historical account, let me come to the actual purpose of the Bill. Up to date, the

company have had no less a sum than approximately £5,000,000 in direct financial subsidy from the State, but that is not the whole story Nothing is ever said about the indirect subsidy; it is always skated over. I am going to remind hon. Members of something which is very pertinent to our Amendment and to the Bill about the measure of assistance received in addition to the £5,000,000 subsidy. It has gone to the shareholders—anonymous shareholders for the most part. A large proportion of the shares is held in the names of nominees. The company get the free use of aerodromes and ground equipment. They get the benefit of an extremely expensive research into aerodynamics, apart from the contributions they receive towards the development of new types of aeroplanes. Survey flights are carried out for them at Government expense. They now receive petrol free of tax. How lightly this fact has been passed over. The other day I was looking at the total number of ton-miles, set out in one of the many vehicles of propaganda put out by this concern. I find that they did a total of over 5,000,000 ton-miles in 1937. I am not able to tell the House how much petrol is used per ton-mile, or whether all the petrol, or what proportion of it, was purchased in this country and otherwise would have paid tax, but it would be very interesting to know how much this relief from taxation has cost the Exchequer. I put down a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day to be answered by written answer, but, as is usual, I have not received the answer on time. No doubt I shall receive it to-morrow.
A meteorological organisation is placed at the disposal of this concern. Diplomatic facilities are given to them in every part of the world in which they operate. They receive special grants for the modernising of their fleet and £900,000 from the Postmaster-General for the carriage of the mails. We are therefore really discussing not simply an increase of £1,500,000 to £3,000,000, which is the ostensible subject before us, but a principle under which this concern will receive, in direct cash subsidies for 15 years, no less than £46,000,000 between itself and British Airways, and £100,000, which is to be devoted to the small internal air lines. If to that figure you add the value, on any moderate basis of computation, of the indirect subsidy which


they receive, I think a very good case could be made out, and one which it would be very difficult to deny, that the total cost to the Exchequer of civil aviation, directed for the most part through the treasury of this private company—this privately owned public company—would be a sum of not less than £61,000,000. That is the estimate which I make, and I think it would be extremely difficult to make a lower one.
Therefore, it is fair to say that the Government are grouting into this commercial organisation all this material to strengthen it and make it an extremely valuable concern, with no provision for return if ever the company should be placed on a prosperous basis. There was a time when the Government did have a provision that, if ever the company was able to earn a profit, some of that profit should be returned by way of returned subsidy. But the advantages which the Government used to have they made haste to throw away, as, for example, when they abolished the obligation on the part of the company to return the subsidy in return for the payment to them of £25,000 in deferred shares, which have never been fructified with dividends and, I think, never will.
The Bill which the House is now asked to pass confirms and expands that policy of developing civil aviation in this way, and the Amendment for which we are contending expresses strong opposition to that policy. We recognise, of course, as much as hon. Members in any part of the House, the national importance of civil aviation, but we say even more emphatically, perhaps, than hon. Members opposite, that its development is a State responsibility. In fact, I think that we on this side of the House have been as active in spurring the Government to greater efforts, with the exception of one extremely valuable contribution, which clinched the matter, made by the hon. Member who sits below the Gangway. He has been associated with us for years, as well as the Under-Secretary, in pressing for more active development, and, therefore nothing that we say must be taken as indicating any under-estimate of the vital importance to the State of this concern. Our objections can be briefly stated, and I would like to add them to what has

been said so fully and so well by my hon. Friend. We think that for a vital Imperial service, whose importance to the State it is unnecessary to recite, to be left under the control of a body of men whose breadth of vision has been calibrated in the Cadman Report, is wrong. In the second place, we think that the policy of heaping financial and other benefits on private shareholders, disclosed or anonymous, as many of them are, and building up for them, with no provision for or prospect of repayment, a commercial structure which has already largely appreciated in capital value and which has been made a medium for financial exploitation, is wrong. In fact, I think that "wrong" would not be the right word. We think it a wicked policy, almost amounting to dishonesty.
In the light of the facts, I should have supposed that the House would have been entitled to some more adequate explanation by the Secretary of State for Air as to why the Government intends to persist in this policy. Why is it necessary, while increasing the provision for civil aviation, to increase at the same time the benefits to the shareholders of this concern? We have had two or three masters of logical exposition holding the office of Under-Secretary of State for Air, but I am not aware that any one of them has ever given us a full justification for this policy. That provides the new Under-Secretary with a magnificent opportunity, with the opportunity, if I may say so, that he has been asking for for so long, the opportunity that he has been thinking about, dreaming about. Now he has it at his feet, and he will be able to give us a full explanation of why it is necessary, when the Government are developing civil aviation, that they should at the same time develop the private account of Imperial Airways and the private accounts of anonymous shareholders of that company. The first thing that the Under-Secretary will have to state is that Imperial Airways is a shining example of efficiency in the realm of private enterprise. I myself think that we shall have to sit here a very long time if we wait until the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made out a case for that. But I am going to promise him that, if he will get up and make that assertion, I will present him with a little prize. I will present him with a bound copy of the Cadman Report if he will only get up and say without


qualification that he considers that Imperial Airways is a shining example of the efficiency of private enterprise.
Even if private enterprise itself is a beneficent thing, it would be difficult to prove that Imperial Airways is a good example of private enterprise. It is supposed to be the profit-making motive that confers all these advantages, and it would be very foolish to deny that the profit-making motive is a tremendous force in industry. Of course, the desire to make a large amount of money is a force which it would be foolish to under-estimate in any sphere of activity. But our contention, and it is a valid one, is that it is largely the desire to remove the very evil which it: causes, namely, the insecurity which attends modern commercial and private life, which in its turn is the spur to people to act in that way without regard to the public interest. As far as the management of Imperial Airways are concerned, I am not aware that any one of them has any financial interest in the concern beyond his own salary, and surely he is just as likely to work well for a salary coming direct from the national Exchequer as when it comes from the national Exchequer indirectly in the form of a subsidy. It might be said that, if the management have no direct profit-making motive, the shareholders would apply the pressure, and, if there were any inefficiency on the part of the management, the shareholders would visit upon them some condign sanctions for their inefficiency. I am not aware, however, that the shareholders have ever uttered any sort of criticism of the management of Imperial Airways. It has been left to the politicians, and to those whom the politicians have appointed to investigate the operations of the management, to make as devastating a criticism as was ever made upon a public or private concern in the history of this House in its relation with industry. The truth of the matter is that the shareholders are concerned, not, as is so often suggested, with the efficiency of the organisation, but with the profit that it pays them, and, so long as they get their dividends, it is nothing to them whether the public interest is being served or not. The profit-making motive may occasionally, as a by-product, result in public good, but the profit-making motive and the public good are by no means the same thing. Indeed, some of the most prominent among profit-

making organisations to-day are working in direct opposition to the well-being of the State, and have been characterised by all sides and all parties as anti-social— for example, the pools.
There is a further danger involved in this system of profit obtained by way of subsidy. Where profits depend upon the payment of subsidies, the whole force which would otherwise be harnessed to make the concern into an efficient one is harnessed to the operations of whitewashing and wirepulling in order to ensure that the subsidy will be paid. It is impossible to deny that that is what is happening in the case of Imperial Airways. An enormous amount of their time has been spent in political propaganda, in national propaganda, in wirepulling, and in white-washing their concern in order to make sure that criticism will not prevent the subsidy from being paid. I have been watching the advertisements which they put out—most ridiculous advertisements if they are intended to bring trade to the concern; and may I say in passing that a considerable proportion of the advertisements of Imperial Airways have been, strangely enough, put on the financial pages of newspapers. That is difficult to understand; perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to explain it. Here is another advertisement—in the "Daily Mail":

" Speed.

The New Empire Flying Boats.

Imperial Airways' new Empire Flying Boats are the fastest flying boats in the world. The top speed is 200 miles an hour. The standard of comfort is higher than that of any other air line in the world."

There is nothing about the timetable, nothing about the service; just a sort of general propaganda to establish the general good name of Imperial Airways, and to intercept criticism of the subsidy which is being received by them. I also find that some of these advertisements are put into newspapers with a provincial circulation, and, if I know anything about their advertising agents, they must have been fully aware that these advertisements, which were put out at great expense, would not pull anything in the shape of an immediate return.

A considerable proportion of the time of the management of this company has been spent in that kind of activity. I


must give the House one further indication, at any rate, of this type of propaganda. There is a journal called the "Aeroplane," from which I quote sometimes, and which, on 26th February, 1936, issued a most severe criticism of this subsidy system. I will not read it now to the House, but there it is. Immediately the Imperial Airways gentlemen got on its track, and used all the forces which they have on their side, such as aircraft manufacturers and so on, and a week or two later an article was published in the "Aeroplane," ostensibly an editorial, vehemently repudiating the whole of the previous article which was also an editorial. This was reprinted and circulated to the public all over the country by Imperial Airways, not only praising themselves, but praising the Government's policy. Referring to the advantages of private capital over Government capital, it says that:
 Instead of putting up the money themselves, the Government are much cleverer, and get the public to lend the whole of the money that it pays for Empire air mail services, with no guarantee of interest or dividend, and the public takes the risk.
I should be very happy to accept the amount of risk that there is in this concern, for which we are providing sums amounting to about £50,000,000 in the next 15 years. The strange fact is that not long after the publication of this article, which was obviously intended merely to placate this concern, the "Aeroplane" returned to their true views. Only last November they wrote:
 The market price depends entirely on the fact that the shareholders are going to get your money and ours, and that is morally and ethically wrong, besides being anti-social and just silly. If the dividend were cut to 4 per cent. the shares would go down to something like their true value and there would be no gambling in them. And at the same time the big financiers who have put money into the concern would get a fair return for it.

Then, this newspaper goes on:
 The money of the public should not be spent in paying outrageous interest to professional financiers.
In spite of what was said in the Cadman Report, we had the Secretary of State for Air coming to us with these proposals and saying nothing about restricting the amount of dividend to be paid to this company. The time spent by the managers of this concern in replying to that sort of criticism must be very great. Why they chose this paper to follow up

I do not know, because nearly every paper in the country has criticised them at one time or another. Here is a paper which has been the champion of all forms of private enterprise, the "Evening Standard," which said:
 In these circumstances, can it be said that a speculative risk exists justifying a 9 per cent. dividend? That would be preposterous. And, if there is no such risk, on what grounds can such a dividend be paid? On no ground tolerable to the public conscience.
To that charge, which is made universally through the country and from every political quarter, no answer has been made by the Government of the day. The companies know that what happened was that these shareholders who are supposed to apply the spur of efficiency to the managers of their concerns, at about the same time as the Cadman Committee was investigating the widespread extent of their maladministration, awarded themselves enormous increases of fees, amounting to about £12,000 per annum in, the aggregate; and, to balance this, they reduced the amount of pay hitherto given to the pilots, despite the fact that the pilots are responsible for every valid claim that Imperial Airways can make to efficiency on their lines. That is a point in regard to which the Under-Secretary has an opportunity to distinguish himself.

Although this company is not a magnificent example of private enterprise as it was understood 40 years ago, I think it is, in fact, a shining example of private enterprise as it is understood to-day, because private enterprise as understood to-day has three main functions. The first is that it must obstruct and restrict the enterprise of the State. In that particular, Imperial Airways has been extremely successful. Its second function is, by successful and highly skilled manipulation, to obtain large direct and indirect subsidies. In that function, too, Imperial Airways has been highly successful. The third is a more positive function of private enterprise to-day. In fact, it might be described as the consummation of private enterprise, the seal and crown of all its efforts: that is, to accept profits and distribute them to the shareholders. That has been done to the satisfaction of all belonging to the company. So, from all three points of view, Imperial Airways can claim to be a shining example of private enterprise.

That is why we on this side are convinced that this policy is an unsound one. Thinking persons know, and I believe in every part of the House will recognise, that this concern is being artificially fed, bolstered up and protected from the breath of all criticism only for one reason. It is part of the fight to maintain the credit of an obsolescent system in industry. It is part of the rearguard action that is being fought for the right to make profits irrespective of the welfare of the State. I would like to warn Conservative Ministers —though why I should do so I do not know—that they are using up the whole of their good will in the country, and any reputation for logic and common sense that they might have possessed. I, at any rate, would urge the Government to realise that if we are to obtain a place among the civil air lines of the world in accordance with our hopes and our position, we shall have to take this concern out of the hands of the small body of private individuals who manage it to-day and scale it up to be a truly Imperial enterprise, and free it from the stigma which exists, and which cannot be repudiated, that when the State applies benefits to this concern it is applying benefits to the private shareholders who own it. If we do that, I believe that the concern will develop on right lines and that, if the time ever comes when we are able to embark on a period of 10 or 20 years of assured peace, the British Commonwealth will then have air lines which will be worthy of the place they hold as a link in the Imperial system.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). One fact emerged very clearly from it, and that was that my hon. and gallant Friend the new Under-Secretary of State for Air has in his hands at the present moment a very great opportunity. I join with all the other hon. Members who have spoken in extending congratulations and good wishes both to the Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Air. I think we are fortunate in having as our Secretary of State for Air a member of the Cabinet who has had great administrative experience and has seen something of flying, and who will no doubt combine in an excellent manner with the Under-Secretary of State, who has had

experience of flying and who in the past has always been a critic of inefficiency whenever it is connected with the Air Force or civil aviation.
I join in expressing the hope that they will not take the attitude of complacency which has often existed in connection with Air Ministry matters, and that they will not say, "In regard to civil aviation our hands are tied, we must accept the recommendations of the Cadman report and other reports." I hope they will not take the view that, because we have had reports in the past, everything is a closed book in the future. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary, when he replies, as I am sure he is bound to do, to the many congratulations that have been extended to him, will deal with the fact that the Cadman report did recommend the appointment of a Secretary of State for Air and two Under-Secretaries of State, one of them for civil aviation. We have now lost the Under-Secretary for Civil Aviation and we are back where we were. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will tell us whether it is intended to appoint an additional Under-Secretary, or whether he will have the special interests of civil aviation at heart.
We are voting to-day an increased subsidy, which, as I understand, will be paid mainly to Imperial Airways and British Airways. I am quite certain that my hon. and gallant Friend will not say that Imperial Airways are a shining example of efficiency. He will not dare to say so, because he has been one of their critics. The point he may make is that, where things have been wrong in the past he will make it his own responsibility to see that they are put right and to bring Imperial Airways up to that standard which has been achieved by British Airways. I was flying in a British Airways plane a few days ago, and we passed in the air an Imperial Airways plane. The Imperial Airways plane was going so slowly that it appeared to be standing still. I hope the Under-Secretary will see that there is no standing-still in civil aviation while he is in his present post.
We know that money is to be paid to Imperial Airways and British Airways. Can the Under-Secretary say something of those other companies which, have undoubtedly spent a great deal of money


and done a lot of pioneering work, without any reward at all? Are they to come into the picture at all? There is the Alp Air Line company, which goes to Switzerland. The Under-Secretary knows of the very good work which has been done by Allied Airways in inaugurating a service from here to Norway. There we have a British company chosen to run an exclusive service to Norway. Are they to go to the wall? Are we to say that they cannot have any subsidy, and that they are not in any way to come into the picture? It may be possible that the Government cannot subsidise them, but that in some way they may be amalgamated, or drawn into the picture, so that we may have a joint operating company.
We are going to have an extra subsidy. One of the suggestions of the Cadman Committee was that Imperial Airways should appoint a new, full-time chairman. The report was signed on 8th February, over three months ago, and so far we have had no indication that Imperial Airways is going to have a new and full-time chairman. Has the present chairman of Imperial Airways definitely undertaken to resign his position as soon as a new chairman can be found; and, assuming that he resigns his position, is he going to stay on the board in order to render what help he can, or is he going to stay out of the picture altogether? Another proposal was that there should be a joint operating company formed on the London-Paris service between British Airways and Imperial Airways. We have heard nothing about that. Now we are voting extra money which is going into the coffers of those two companies. Will the Under-Secretary say that, before that money is paid, he will insist on the two companies adopting all the recommendations of the Cadman Committee?
I was surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said he saw no reason to increase the subsidy in order to develop our internal air lines. He invited the Under-Secretary to reply, and to say what justification there was for it. There is every justification for it. If it is necessary for national prestige to run air lines all over the world, it is equally necessary to run them at home. If we are to operate air lines successfully we must make the people of this country

air-minded, and it is hardly likely that our people will fly when they go abroad if they have not had the opportunity at first to fly at home. It is good to develop the internal air lines, because we are building up a very useful reserve of air pilots. The Secretary of State said that they were going to see that at least 75 per cent. of the air pilots of subsidised companies were members of the Air Force Reserve.
That is one of the most obvious necessities in building up a powerful Air Force in this country. We built up the Royal Navy largely with the backing of the Mercantile Marine, because there was always a body of seafaring men to man our ships. So it ought to be with the Royal Air Force. There ought to be a large body of qualified air pilots always ready to be called upon in times of emergency. If we can develop these air lines it will help to create that for which the Cadman report asks. It will build up the necessary reserves of aircraft and provide vital links with our imperial and continental services. I also hope that it will provide for some use of air ports which have been provided by local authorities in this country at very great expense.
I welcome this subsidy of £100,000. It is small, but it will be very helpful, and I should like the Under-Secretary in his reply to say how the subsidy is to be treated. Is it to be given to one operating company which will be licensed and given a monopoly under the licensing system which we are to discuss a little later this evening, or is it to be divided among all the people who are running air lines in this country which conform to the requirements laid down in accordance with the speech of the Under-Secretary of State? I feel sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give a satisfactory answer to these questions, and I believe that for the first time we are getting some real help for the internal air lines of this country which may give us the system of civil aviation in this country for which some of us have asked and which we have dreamed about for a long time.

5.33 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I rise only for the purpose of asking the Under-Secretary of State whether, when he replies, he will make a clear and definite statement with


regard to Government policy in connection with the subsidy for external air lines. The matter arises out of paragraph 36 of the Cadman report, and I will take the opportunity of reminding the House of what that committee said:
 If our national prestige is to be maintained, our external air services must be concentrated in a small number of well-founded and substantial organisations, rather than dissipated among a large number of competing companies of indifferent stability.
Whatever our views may be with regard to the larger question of private enterprise and Socialism as raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, those of us who support subsidies at all must agree with that paragraph of the Cadman report. I have been told within the last few days that there are at least some indications that it is the policy of the Air Ministry to limit subsidies for the maintenance of our external air services to one company. No one who knows anything about British Airways could say anything against that company. I believe it to be an excellent organisation in every way and extremely efficient, but I hope very much that this company will not in effect be given a monopoly in the maintenance of our external air services. We all agree that there should not be a large number of competing companies, but, surely, there ought to be more than one company. There are one or two other air companies which have for some years now maintained regular services to the Continent. They are sound financially, and efficient, their pilots are highly qualified, and their equipment is modern. In at least one case a regular service has been operated for four or five years. I would like the Under-Secretary when he replies to let me know whether it is not the fact that a very good case could be made out for subsidising such a company. I am of course referring to West Coast Airways. [Interruption.] I have found myself on more than one occasion speaking on behalf of air companies and perhaps I should say now that I have no sort of interest in any of these organisations. West Coast Airways have undoubtedly maintained a very efficient service to the Continent, and it is well entitled to be considered when subsidies are being given. Allied Airways is another similar company. Paragraph 37 of the Cadman report accentuated the necessity of limiting the number of competing companies.

 We consider that the same external route should not be operated by more than one British company, and that, as recommended by the Maybury Committee in the case of internal air services, some measure of restriction should be applied to avoid indiscriminate competition.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Air Ministry should keep two British companies running on the same route. British Airways maintain services, I understand, to Berlin and Hanover, to Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen, and I hope that they will be subsidised in respect of these services. There is no British service to Zurich, although a Swiss air line maintains a regular service between there and Croydon. There is no regular service at all run by any nation between this country and Luxemburg, and I understand that West Coast Air Services are prepared to operate along that route.
If no subsidy is to be given to these companies I hope at least that the Air Ministry will do nothing to handicap them in operating the services which they can maintain without a subsidy. It is necessary for any company desiring to maintain a service to a foreign airport to ask for the help of the Air Ministry. Applications for landing facilities have to be made to the foreign Government. The whole procedure under the International Convention has to be followed, and it is possible for the Air Ministry to prevent a British service being run to any foreign airport by any specified company. They have the power not only of denying the subsidy, which I think, should be given, but of making operations so difficult that, in fact, the company would probably have to close down. I shall be very sorry indeed if those companies which are to-day maintaining services have such handicaps put in their way by the Air Ministry. That is the only point I wish to raise. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House that it is not the policy of the Government to give a monopoly to one company, British Airways, when there are other financially sound and efficient companies. If a subsidy is to be given, they ought to receive a share of it.

5.40 p.m.

Major Procter: It was quite in keeping with the political ideology of the party opposite when the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) swung this Debate round, by


introducing a long dissertation on Socialism as applied to the Air Services. He cited many instances not only of State control, but of State ownership, one of which was Australian shipping, stating that Mr. Bruce had spoken of the advantages of the State owning those ships. If that were so, why did the Australian Government sell all her State-owned ships? State ownership of transport in other lands, after being tried has been given up on account of political jobbery and loss. America abandoned State ownership in shipping. If you take certain forms of socialised transport on the Continent, train services, for instance, there is no comparison with the English privately-owned system. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which is based upon a fundamental error. He believes in the public ownership of the present utility under discussion. Of course he does. His party started from the basis of public ownership of all means of production, distribution and exchange. It is the only reason for their existence as a separate party. This idea is put forward as a theory in almost every Debate, but when the Socialist party were in office they did not put forward one socialistic proposal.
The party to which I belong has never hesitated to use the State if it has been considered to be to the advantage of the country. We are not wedded, like the Socialist party to the principle that the State must own all means of production, distribution and exchange, with us it is a question of wisdom and expediency. [Interruption.] I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), but I do not like him to punctuate my sentences. We on this side of the House believe that certain undertakings should be controlled by the State. But they are few in number and must possess certain characteristics. They have to be of the nature of a monopoly, such as the Post Office, or where it is essential to have unified control, as is the case in the Army and the Navy. But on the other hand there are many industries which, if the State were to control them, would end in disaster. To take civil aviation at this stage of its development out of the hands of those who by training and knowledge know how to run it, and put it into the paralysing

hands of politicians would be a retrograde step.
The proper function of the Government is not to own or manage the air services but to make regulations in the interest of the safety of those who use those services. The National Government has made Transport regulations which act like traffic signals. They say, "Stop" and "Go," in the interests of the public, but they do not state the kind of car that one must drive or how much one is to pay for it. That is the difference between the two sides of the House on these questions. When hon. Members opposite bring forward Socialistic arguments, I reply that we shall resist Socialism wherever we find it, whether it is sought to be applied to civil aviation or in any other way Hon. Members always raise "the bogy of profits, but we say that the profit motive is a tremendous motive in industry, both to the employer and the employee. One of the reasons for the rise of the Co-operative movement is the fact that they make profit and offer a dividend. The reason why we try to kill Socialism wherever we see it is because we believe that Socialists, unknown to themselves, are working for tyranny. They may ultimately land us into a super-kind of Socialism, known as National Socialism, such as exists in Germany. That Socialism leads on to dictatorship. We say that you cannot practice your Socialism without tyranny.
The reason why Socialism either in air transport or any other industry cannot be carried out without tyranny is, that the Socialist policy makes the State the one master of everybody in the land. If you have one boss, you have a dictator, and if you have a dictator you have tyranny. Wherever we find dictatorship in the world to-day we find that it has been preceded either by the dread of Socialism, the practice of Socialism or the threat of Communism.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. and gallant Member is travelling away from the subject before the House.

Major Procter: In the early part of the Debate the hon. Member for Islington, West (Mr. Montague) went over a very wide field in dealing with the question of Socialism as applied to the air service. His Amendment specifically states "the


State ownership of this service." However, I will leave that point. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted, because private enterprise has played a great part in the air services. Much of the development that has been done has been due to private enterprise. The risks have been borne by private enterprise, and to kill private enterprise in air services would stop the flow of invention and arrest progress in this industry.

Mr. Kirkwood: I suppose that is why the Navy is under private enterprise?

Major Procter: As an engineer the hon. Member must know that the developments in the engine-rooms have not been brought about by Government Departments but by private enterprise; by the skill and invention of private individuals in private firms. I should like to make a constructive proposal regarding internal air communications. I would ask the Under-Secretary —we are glad to see him here for the first time occupying a very honourable place on the Front Bench—whether he is quite satisfied that there is no interference with the air services by the railway companies. Will he say whether the Manchester airways service is interfered with by the railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] I do not want to take up further time by being led astray by interruptions. I should like to know why there is no direct British air communication between this country and Hungary and other countries in Middle Europe, which, since the Anschluss, are anxious about their parliamentary institutions and trade. If it were possible to make direct communications between this country and free people of Hungary, so that tourists and commercial representatives could be transported the intervening thousand milles, it would be a great gesture as showing our sympathy with that kindly and hospitable and liberty-loving people who have been denied an air force of their own under the Treaty of Trianon. It would be appreciated by and would show our great friendship and interest in their economic future. It would also help to prevent the spread of dictatorship ideas in Middle Europe.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I can hardly wish to continue the Debate, which really ceased about an hour and a quarter ago.

Mr. Gallacher: That is an insult. Withdraw it.

Mr. Pickthorn: The insult, if any, is from the benches opposite. I used the word "Debate" advisedly, because we really have had no contribution from the other side for a long time. We did have an argument about the socialisation of this service, but that was dropped some considerable time ago, and we have since been down to more or less brass tacks.
I wish to mention, briefly, three matters in connection with the use of the proposed subsidy. If subsidy there is to be, I should like to suggest that the Ministry should give attention to the three points which I have in mind. I suppose I am one of the comparatively few Members of this House who has had his breeches, if not his wings singed by what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) described as unnecessarily dangerous fuels, and I should like to emphasise his request that the use of part of this subsidy for the development of safer fuels for use in civil machines should be considered.
There are two other questions for which I would ask consideration. The Minister in introducing the Bill referred to aviation in the British West Indies. I would suggest for very careful consideration whether that is not the most urgent of all possible lines where imperial aviation ought to be developed. There was an attempt made very soon after the War—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite who did not speak publicly should now do so much private speaking.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is not hon. Members on these benches who are disturbing the House; it is the Air Ministry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Members should leave that to the Chair.

Mr. Pickthorn: An attempt was made very soon after the War to establish air lines in the West Indies, but it was dropped, because the Home Government considered that it was impossible to start any form of subsidisation at that time. If it had been possible to make aerial communications between the different islands practicable then, the whole history


of the West Indies for the last 15 years might have been very different. One of the main difficulties in these Colonies is that each unit is too small to be an effective political and social unit, and that will continue to be so as long as communications are as bad as they are at the present time.
It may be, in the long run, that the most important of all transport lines will be the aerial transport lines from this country across the North Atlantic, and then across the South Pacific. In the development of American air communications it is perfectly clear that Pan-American Airways have immense advantages and have an immense start over us. It is almost equally clear that any attempt at anything in, the nature of direct competition would be probably ill-judged and almost certainly unsuccessful. There must be feeding branch-lines for the great trunk lines, and if we are to have our proper share in the traffic of the great main trunk lines, our business is to start now the provision of the feeding branch lines that will be necessary. In the West Indies and the Caribbean, that calls to be done most obviously, and is most obviously the urgent task of this country. Therefore, I would ask that particular attention should be given to West Indian possibilities in this connection.
The third matter with which I am concerned is that of internal communications. I disagree humbly from most hon. Members who have spoken to-day and in similar Debates in the past in not attaching as much importance as they do to internal air communications. I believe that the size of these islands and the climatic conditions make it impossible for internal communications ever to have the significance that is sometimes attributed to them. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with what the Minister and the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) said, that in the long run the Air Force can be of no use to us at all unless it stands in something like the same sort of proportion to the people not in it who know about the air, as the Naval Force has to the people not in it who know about ships. I do not know the proportion that that may be, but it is probably very much larger than the iceberg proportion of 10 tons of ice under the water to every ton of ice above the

water. I do not know whether we shall ever get to the point of having 10 people flying for non-service as against one flying for service purposes, but unless we can get something like the proportion of four to one, no amount of sudden or even continued production of machines, or anything else, is in the long run going to give us the moral or the military position in the air which we ought to have, and without which we shall cease to be in any sense at all a first-rate Power.
I suppose it would not be in order to suggest that any portion of this money should be spent in subsidising what I might call flying for amusement rather than internal airways, but I hope that it is not out of order to suggest that the Ministry might consider very carefully whether, although it may seem uneconomic to fly for amusement, as against the transport of goods and of passengers, it would not be much more economical in this country to spend money in persuading this right sort of young men, indeed, any young men, but preferably the right sort of young men, to fly. I believe that money spent in that way would be infinitely more economical than most of the money likely to be spent on internal airways. It is for consideration of these three points that I respectfully ask the attention of the Ministry.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: In discussing the question of the subsidy in relation to Imperial Airways I would remind hon. Members that it was following the report of the Hambling Committee in 1923 that the Government of the day decided to promote the amalgamation of the small existing companies into one central unit and to give to that unit the task of developing British air transport overseas. It was necessary to give some substantial financial help because neither then nor now could civil aviation "fly by itself." The nature of the organisation is well-known. In paragraph 44 of their report the Cadman Committee repeat:
 In the first place, we desire to make it clear that we do not recommend the creation of a Corporation or Company administered under Government control, but of a commercial organisation run entirely on business lines with a privileged position with regard to air transport subsidies, on terms and conditions to be defined later.
This is taken from the Hambling Committee. Whatever criticism may be


directed towards the European services of Imperial Airways let us remember that experience has shown, and the report of the Cadman Committee has emphasised, that the work of Imperial Airways in regard to Empire services, particularly in regard to flying boats which are without doubt in the van of modern aircraft, has been an achievement of which we may well be proud and which well justifies the subsidy and help given by the Government. The Cadman Committee referred to the exploitation of Empire air routes leading to the conception of an Empire air mail scheme and described this development as unique in the air services of the world. When criticism is levelled at this company for the slow flying of its Continental services, or when older types of aircraft put into operation on its Continental air routes are discussed, we should also remember the great performance which Imperial Airways has achieved under extreme difficulties in the Empire air routes, and I hope that the Under-Secretary—I want to join in the congratulations which have been showered upon him—when he replies will be able to say that the last acceleration made by Imperial Airways in the African and Indian services has been a complete success. They have to fly over different countries, over different frontiers, through different climates, towards and over the Equator, and the services of Imperial Airways throughout the Empire do, I think, show a record which we can discuss with pleasure, and upon which we can look back with great satisfaction. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) spoke of the slowness of the machines of Imperial Airways as compared with those of competing companies.

Mr. R. Robinson: It was in relation to the speed of British Airways machines. I was not comparing it with any foreign country.

Mr. Lyons: I am obliged. The hon. Member was comparing the speed of the machines of Imperial Airways with the speed of the machines of British Airways. It was said in the House only a week ago that not one single aircraft utilised by British Airways is of British manufacture. They may be faster machines, but they are foreign made. Imperial Airways have British-made machines, but they have been delayed year after year in the delivery which was promised of newer

and more modem aircraft. They have concentrated, rightly, I think, on the success and efficiency and development of their Empire schemes rather than on their services to the Continent. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to tell us how it is proposed to apportion this subsidy. That Imperial Airways and civil aviation will get a much larger subsidy is all to the good. I have urged for an increase and I welcome it. The subsidy has been far too small, trivial in comparison with the much large subsidies given in other countries in relation to respective flying traffics and who have none of the difficulties with which we have to contend in this Empire service.
I would like more details as to how the subsidy is to be appropriated. Can the Under-Secretary say what is to be set aside to start immediately a regular service between Australia and New Zealand? Can he say—perhaps he cannot at this short notice, and in that case I shall readily understand his position— that when a subsidy is being expended in the joint-extension of our Empire services we make it a condition that there shall be some reciprocal arrangement with Pan-American Airways or other companies with whom we may cooperate? In a magazine called "American Aviation" of 15th October, 1935, reporting, I believe, the Western Aviation Planning Conference, it was stated that the Assistant Secretary of Commerce in Washington had said that British undertakings would never be granted permission to use the Hawaiian Islands as a stopping point for a Trans-Pacific route. If that is so, it would be a great obstacle in the way of any extension of these services there, and it might be useless to set aside a large subsidy for something which might not mature. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will tell us what the position is. It has been said that British air services have been artificially fed. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), in the course of his criticisms, said that Imperial Airways had throughout all its life been protected from criticism. They have not been protected from criticism in this House, because they have been under the most acute examination on many occasions.

Mr. Garro Jones: I said that they have been protected from criticism by the


Government, who have spoken on their behalf. Of course, there is nothing to prevent hon. Members criticising.

Mr. Lyons: The very fact of the subsidy coming from public funds to Imperial Airways or to British Airways makes them always liable to criticism from hon. Members in all parts of the House. There is no shelter from that type of criticism, and there never has been. We heard from the Minister, to whom I should like to offer the warmest wishes for the success which we all hope will be his, that a sum of £100,000 is to be set aside to help and advance internal air lines in this country. I welcome that step, it is one which I have often suggested. It will do profound good to the home-flying of this country. I join issue with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who did not support our views in regard to internal air lines because of the small-ness of the country. I think it is a tragedy that the internal air lines which came into being in this country received no assistance from the State. One by one they have ceased to operate.
I hope we shall hear how this £100,000 is to be distributed. There is operating now an internal air line known as the Olley Air Service, who have had no State assistance and who are opposed on their routes by the railway air services which have State assistance. Various internal air lines have done much good work in cross country areas, but recently many have had to close down, and I hope the Minister will give us an indication that this £100,000 will be expended in developing routes over cross country areas where regular flying services can be developed with great advantage. The city of Leicester established a good airport. There was a regular service from Leicester to Norwich—two towns which are allied by trade and industry. It is notorious that the railway service between the two is archaic and thoroughly obsolete, and that the railway companies are offering no improvement. The air service between these two towns did good service, but after a time it ceased operating altogether. It was in existence when the former Secretary of State for Air came down to open the Leicester airport, but for a long time now there has been no regular service at all.
May I ask what help is to be given to municipal airports? Vast sums of money

have been expended by ratepayers to establish municipal airports worthy of the respective cities. They were encouraged to do this by the Government. They obtained the ground organisation, or the skeleton of the ground organisation, but found that they were getting no support of any kind from the State. No air services are coming to these airports; they are lying there without animation at all, and a grievous position will arise in many towns, Leicester is one. The danger is that they will be abandoned by the corporations and that building areas will take the place of these airports to the national disadvantage. No airport or airfield should be left idle. I hope the help for which we are asking will be forthcoming.
There are several other questions I want to put. Can the Under-Secretary say whether any particular appropriation is going to be made to help the "pick-aback aircraft"—which is the composite "Short-Mayo" flying-boat? Were the tests recently made by this type of aircraft for Imperial Airways a success? Are the tests to be continued, and, if so, to what extent? Are we to have this type of aircraft available for long distance routes, and is there to be a direct and specialised appropriation of this subsidy for this kind of machine? It may be one of the biggest inventions of the day, and I hope we shall be told what steps are being taken to see that it has a proper share in the subsidy.
It is of great consequence that the air services of this country should expand. They have fought their way to success through great difficulties. The pioneering work which has been done by Imperial Airways will stand for all time as an overwhelming success. But I hope there will be no complacency. The schedules have been accelerated. Can they be accelerated more by some kind of night flying? What is to prevent night flying taking its proper place in these services? Are the rest-houses of Imperial Airways satisfactory and in keeping with the comfort and excellence of the journeys as a whole? Can we improve the flying-boat bases? Is there anything that can be done to make the journeys more inviting than they are now? I believe that the object of Imperial Airways is to cover the long distances safely and efficiently and in the shortest time, and that nothing will be spared by the


company in seeking to achieve that end. I hope that there will be continued progress, so that the next few years will give results well comparable with the progress given by the last few years in the development and promotion of our great Empire air services.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I wish to tender cordial congratulations to the Secretary of State for Air and the Under-Secretary on their appointments. There is little doubt that in the course of time the Air Ministry will be the most important of all Ministries. In a war, it will control the master weapon which has changed the venue of battlefields, and outspanned continents and seas, and yet its development is still in its infancy. In peace time, civil aviation is a new factor in international relationships, and it is imperative that its development should be on proper lines that we may be linked effectively with all parts of the Empire. As has been stated in support of our Amendment, private enterprise in aviation has failed, except where national financial support has been afforded to it, and that in itself ought to be a justification for the assertion that it should be a socialised industry. Those who are opposed to socialised industry seem to be entirely oblivious of the socialised industries which exist both under Government control and under the municipalities. There is an increasing capital investment in municipal undertakings of a purely socialised character, and their number is increasing with considerable rapidity. Therefore, I feel that it is not necessary to argue in any great detail the Amendment which has been so effectively submitted to the House, and I shall await with great interest the arguments which the Minister has to advance against it.
In the absence of agreement in the House on the lines of the Amendment, of which one sees no hope to-day, I am gratified that a sum of £100,000 is to be set aside for internal air lines out of this new grant. The Government wisely stipulate that 75 per cent. of the pilots concerned should be available to the Royal Air Force. One of the objects of the Air Ministry ought to be to create a population air-minded. It should not be forgotten that only about 10 per cent. of the population have the opportunity of

travelling by air, and that about 90 per cent. of our people remain to be made air-minded. Little use is being made of private aerodromes, municipal aerodromes and light aeroplane clubs. If it be desirable that the population should be air-minded and that there should be a continuous output of persons licensed to handle aeroplanes, the present system ought to be changed without further delay. We are neglecting a great source from which pilots might be drawn. The Royal Air Force training centres turn out a certain number of pilots, but that number would be infinitesimal in the event of war, in view of the demands that would be made on the Royal Air Force.
Consequently, the Government have encouraged, to a limited extent, light aeroplane clubs and municipal aerodromes to train pilots, and there is a grant of £25 for every licence which is obtained. That sum is considered to be sufficient to enable the clubs to train pilots. It is estimated that at the Royal Air Force training centres the cost is about £150 for every licence obtained. On the authority of the light aeroplane club in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I suggest that the Government should spend a proportion of the £100,000 in increasing that subsidy to £40. There are 48 subsidised clubs in this country and about 24 un-subsidised ones. If the subsidy were increased to £40, these clubs would be prepared to train free of charge all and sundry who were capable of being trained as pilots, in their leisure time, in the evenings, on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, and thus a substantial proportion of the population could be trained by these clubs. At the present time, the Government restrict the amount paid to a club to £2,000 per annum; that restriction would have to be swept away if substantial numbers were to be trained on the lines I have suggested.
I have examined this matter with the heads of light aeroplane clubs; we see no defect in such a system and the Government would save a sum of about £100 per licence. Moreover, such results could be obtained without disturbing the ordinary occupations of the prospective pilots. If municipal aerodromes and light aeroplane clubs had that opportunity placed at their disposal —they have not got it now, because a light aeroplane club is compelled


to make a charge of about 30s. per flying hour for the training of pilots—there would be a great increase in the number of pilots who would be available to the Royal Air Force in due course. I do not suggest that once a person had been trained as a pilot at a civil aerodrome and had obtained his A licence, he would necessarily be ready for the Royal Air Force. He would require only a small amount of additional training, or Royal Air Force instructors could be placed at the disposal of these clubs. If the Minister has not already considered this matter, I hope he will do so, and will give to the aeroplane clubs an opportunity of performing a real national service. At the present time the municipal aerodromes are not being utilised, for the services which used to come to them are no longer. At the Newcastle airport, internal air lines have been tried again and again, but have had to close down.

Mr. Lyons: Is there any regular service operating from the Newcastle airport to-day?

Mr. Adams: There is a service to Scotland and to London, and Allied Airways (Gandar Dower), Limited, have a service to Norway, but I gather that unless they can have some support from the Government, they will be bound to close down. They have put many thousands of pounds into the enterprise in the belief that there would be a profitable service both in goods and passengers between this country and Norway. The new proposals made by the Government will be of great value to the country if full advantage is taken of them. I would impress upon the Minister that there is a multitude of persons on the North-East Coast anxious to obtain pilots' certificates. One can see them in crowds around the aerodrome when there is flying. I hope the Minister will give this matter full consideration. As I have said, it would be possible to save nearly £100 per licence, by carrying out the proposal which I have indicated, and I believe that what I have suggested would be one of the simplest and most economical methods of creating an air-minded population in this country.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Perkins: I wish to put four questions to the Under-Secretary, but before

doing so, may I congratulate the Minister on the very bold, courageous step which he has taken? Within his first 24 hours at the Air Ministry, he has torn up a page of the Cadman report and the whole of the Maybury report. The Maybury report came down definitely against subsidising internal air lines, and in that view it was reinforced by the Cadman Committee. I am thankful that the Minister has had the courage to tear up both recommendations and is now giving a word of encouragement to internal aviation. I believe it will be welcomed by all air operators in this country and by those concerned with municipal aerodromes, because the one benefits the other. The first question which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary is with regard to the pilots. I understand that two Government directors of Imperial Airways interviewed certain disgruntled pilots a few weeks ago and reported to the Government that, in their view, certain of these pilots should be reinstated. Have any of those pilots yet been offered employment by any of the companies concerned?
My second question has reference to the suggested Whitley council. The Cadman report suggested, and the Government adopted the suggestion, that a Whitley council should be set up for all commercial pilots, and in particular for those of Imperial Airways. Have any steps been taken by Imperial Airways to set up such a council? My third question is about the pooling arrangements recommended by the Cadman Committee in respect of the London-Paris run. The Cadman report suggested that a new company should be formed of British Airways and Imperial Airways to pool the passenger traffic on the London-Paris run. Has any progress been made in that respect and are we likely to see the new company formed this summer? Finally, I should like to ask who exactly is to be eligible for this increase in subsidy? Is it to be limited, as in the past, to Imperial Airways and British Airways? Is it definitely restricted to those two companies, or are certain other companies which are already in being, or which may come into being in future, to be eligible for the subsidy if they fulfil certain conditions?

6.33 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I wish to join with other hon. Members in con-


gratulating the Minister. I hope he will achieve as great a success at the Air Ministry as he did at the Post Office. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary on having taken his place at that Box, and before he replies to-night I wish to ask him one or two questions. First, can he tell me when the Short-Mayo flying boat is likely to cross the Atlantic? I understand that that is the purpose for which she was designed. We ought to know whether that experiment will soon be undertaken. I would also ask how the North Atlantic services are getting on generally. The year is advancing, and so far nothing much seems to have been done. I would ask the Air Minister also to speed up, if he can, the provision of ^ the Southern Atlantic services. It is bad for our prestige in South America that we have no services running to the Argentine. We are paying more than £100,000 a year to get our air mails transported across the Southern Atlantic by German air lines. They carry millions of letters to the Argentine, and when the people there see the mails coming in regularly by those lines and no British aircraft at all coming in, the effect is to damage our prestige, as I know from letters which I have received.
I would also ask the Air Minister to look into the whole question of the West Indies air services, and to see whether we cannot put up something there against Pan-American Airways. It is nearly three years ago since I asked that this question should be looked into, but Pan-American Airways have got a footing there and that injures our prestige in the West Indies. There is also the question of the Pacific air line. I hope that we are working parallel with American Airways in developing the Pacific service. They had a disaster, I know, in the burning out of the Samoa clipper, and in that connection I hope that consideration will be given to the suggestion in the Cadman report that we should develop the Diesel engine for these long-distance air routes so as to make them as safe as possible for those who have to operate the services. The Air Minister said that we had been giving £100,000 for internal air lines. Does that include the Newcastle-Norway air line? The Minister referred to European air services, but I understand that the claim of the Newcastle-Norway air line has been turned down lately, and that no subsidy is to

be given to it. I submit that that matter ought to be reconsidered. I hope the Minister will send for the correspondence with the Newcastle-Norway air lines company and see whether something cannot be done to help them. It would put them on a much better footing with the Norwegian people if they were a properly recognised company. They have been working this service for a great many years, and have, I understand, done more oversea flying than any other company except Imperial Airways.
I hope that attention will also be given to the question of Langstone Harbour. This matter has been under consideration for two or three years and there has been nothing but wrangling about it between the Air Ministry and the Portsmouth Corporation. I was told the other day that one of our big flying boats had to land at a port in France on arrival from India, because it was impossible to get into Southampton. It is unfair to ask the pilot to bring one of these big flying boats into Hythe, near Southampton. The space is very restricted and there are yachts anchored all around and the pilot has scarcely room to get off the water. When flying in one of these boats there a short time ago I was amazed that it was possible to get pilots to operate such boats in such conditions. It is not right that one of our big flying boats should be compelled to land in a French port because there is no suitable port in the south of England. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look into the Langstone Harbour question again. Whether he adopts the high level scheme or the low level scheme, it is time that something was done to provide these pilots with a safe harbour on their arrival from distant parts of the world.

6.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I claim the indulgence of the House on two grounds, first because of the ordeal which one has to go through in speaking from this Box for the first time, and, secondly, because of the number of comprehensive and technical questions which have been put to me in the course of this Debate. At the outset, I would like to thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for the kindness of the welcome which they have extended to me on taking over the duties of this office. I assure them that no one feels the re-


sponsibility of the task which I have undertaken, or the humble character of the abilities which I bring to that task, more than I do myself. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who opened the Debate, dealt largely with the question of Socialism against private enterprise. It is not for me to embark upon that argument, and I do not propose to do so this evening. In the first place, the Government have decided that private enterprise, controlled and limited by Statute, shall be the principle of the development of civil aviation during the period in which the present agreements are to run. Secondly, the proposals of this Bill are intended to implement the recommendations of the Cad-man Committee. That committee was asked for by Members in all parts of the House, and its recommendations have gained the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, just as of Members in other parties.

Mr. Montague: Does that mean that the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to ignore completely the Amendment on the Paper? It is a Socialist Amendment.

Captain Balfour: I am far from ignoring it, but I am trying to deal with it broadly and in a few sentences. Private enterprise controlled and limited by Statute represents the decided policy of the Government and it is not for me, a junior Minister, to controvert that policy. Further, this Bill, as I say, implements the Cadman report which has been welcomed in all parts of the House.

Mr. Garro Jones: I am sure the House wishes to give every indulgence to the hon. and gallant Member, but this is not a Bill dealing with the Cadman report. It is a Bill containing certain proposals which are set out in Clauses 1 and 2. The policy expressed in those Clauses has been impugned by our Amendment, and it is the duty of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer the arguments which we have put forward.

Captain Balfour: I could easily embark upon an argument about nationalisation as compared with private enterprise, but there are many points with which I wish to deal. Obviously, Government policy on the question of nationalisation or private enterprise is not going to be de-

cided by what I say to-night. Actually, the policy of the Government has been to temper the strength of monopoly with a reasonable measure of competition, wherever there appears to be a sufficiency of traffic, and in the last two years that policy has been implemented by the selection of a second chosen instrument, namely, British Airways to work alongside, and to some extent in competition with. Imperial Airways.
I think the case for nationalisation depends on the view taken of the functions of Government. It may be said that Imperial Airways, which is, in essence, a public utility company, controlled by contracts with the Government, in consideration of the subsidies granted to it, is in a better position to function successfully in the commercial world than a Government Department under the present form of Constitutional control, by Treasury and Parliament. That was the view taken by the Hambling Committee in 1923, when it recommended, not the creation of a corporation or company administered under Government control, but a commercial organisation run on business lines with a privileged position in regard to air transport facilities. It is perhaps fair to suggest that the case for nationalising air services is no different, in nature or in strength, from the case for nationalising other transport services and the greater industries of the country, which is the policy of the party opposite. It is a policy which has not been accepted by the electorate and is opposed to that policy which His Majesty's Government, acting on the will of the people, have pursued. since we are talking on this question of nationalisation against private enterprise, there is just one other remark that I would make. Under the form of private enterprise, Imperial Airways and British Airways profits are controlled—I will come to the point of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) later. But any losses fall upon those who have been bold enough to venture into this new and developing field of transport, in the hope of some return in the future, which return, if it does come, will be limited by Statutes passed by this House. Did we have a policy of nationalisation, those losses would be borne by the general taxpayers, direct and indirect, rather than by the company's shareholders.
The hon. Member for West Islington objected to the proposal in this Bill to raise the subsidy from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000, but I would point out that that was in accordance with the recommendation of the Cadman Committee. The hon. Member objected to this Bill because of what he called discrimination in subsidies but you are bound to have discrimination in the granting of a subsidy because of the differing conditions under which air transport concerns are operating. You can, for instance, take a route where traffic is easy to obtain and where competition is comparatively limited, and certainly more favourable to aviation because of the discomforts of an unpleasant sea journey such as the service to the Channel Islands. Equally there may be a need for service between other points where the traffic to be carried is light, but the service may be imperative and, therefore, may have to command a subsidy to keep it going, and that is the reason for the discrimination which has to be exercised in the granting of a subsidy.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said he was not really quite sure whether he would come down on the side of private enterprise or on the side of nationalisation, but on balance I think he came down on the side of private enterprise.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Very decidedly.

Captain Balfour: But he did say that he did not know what would be his position in 20 years from now, and I think that is the case with all of us in this great adventure of aviation. None of us can tell what is going to be the situation in 20, 30, or 50 years' time. But we have to decide on a policy now, and the policy of the control of private enterprise, with profits limited by Statute, is, I am sure, the soundest course for us to follow at the present time. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), whom I would like to thank for his kind words about myself—

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Will my hon. and gallant Friend just say a word in regard to Diesel engines?

Captain Balfour: I am coming to that. The hon. Member for Berwick asked

whether we would give an undertaking that we would not be tied by the recommendations of the Cadman Committee, and said that he expected an examination by my right hon. Friend and myself of the problems of civil aviation. I think I can give the hon. Member that assurance right away. Already my right hon. Friend has started—and I am endeavouring so to do—to examine various problems, and in the course of my remarks I shall have to make reference to one or two steps which have already been taken in the comparatively short time during which we have been in the Department. The hon. Member asked a specific question in regard to Newcastle Airways. So far as I know, there is no such company as Newcastle Airways. There are North Eastern Airways and Allied Airways, and I am presuming that he meant Allied Airways. They will be eligible to apply for the subsidy in respect of their internal services in the same way as any other company now operating will be eligible to apply. My right hon. Friend gave the House the particular terms which govern the granting of this subsidy, and I will give those few sentences again. He said:
 All companies actually operating internal services at the present date will be eligible for consideration, subject to their entering into suitable agreements under the Air Navigation Act.
The hon. Member then made the point that when we are spending public money, there should be some form of public control. It is just because of that fact that in this new proposal of subsidies for internal air lines, any company that is successful in its application has to accept the obligation of having a Government director on its board to meet the needs which the hon. Member thinks, and which we ourselves feel, to be necessary. I would like to turn now to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey and deal with the question of Diesel engines, which was also dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).

Mr. Pickthorn: Not learned.

Captain Balfour: Any representative of Cambridge University is, I am sure, learned. He asked if some of the money voted to-day will be available for technical research in respect of compression ignition


engines. The particular sum which is being granted by Parliament under this Bill will not be available for compression ignition engine research, but there is a sum of money available under the Vote for civil aviation for this particular purpose. I thoroughly agree with him as to the need for pushing forward technical development and research to the uttermost, on the ground of safety. Nevertheless, we must not forget that the balancing factor at the present stage of technical development, as regards efficiency and power weight ratio is heavily in favour of the petrol engine. It is not much good having a compression ignition engined aeroplane if it is completely inefficient for its purpose as compared with one fitted with petrol engines. I do not say that that is so at the present time, but I am trying to make the point that there is the balancing factor, and only research and development will enable that factor to be redressed so that we can use non-inflammable compression ignition air engines in aircraft instead of the present petrol engines, which have to have so many safeguards against fire incorporated in their design.

Sir M. Sueter: Have not the Germans had considerable success with their compression Diesel engine?

Captain Balfour: I believe the Germans have had a certain amount of success, but there is no regular use on the German lines at present of compression ignition engines other than semi-experimental and development flights. There is no air line running constantly, day in and day out, with such engines. We must also remember that other countries, with other forms of national economy, can devote much larger sums of money, without any commercial considerations, to these problems, with which unfortunately we have to reckon partly in terms of money.
I want now to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. He gave a historical survey of the development of Imperial Airways, with varying accuracy as to some of his facts. He said that Imperial Airways was practically a gilt-edged security. On the other hand, we have had Members on all sides of the House saying that flying is very dangerous, and I do not think anybody investing their money in aircraft

flying with danger would say that they were investing in a gilt-edged concern. I do not want to go over the history of the finance of Imperial Airways. Suffice it to say, in regard to dividend, that if you took one year, you could make it microscopic, but if you took the last year, you could make it comparatively high; but it has averaged 4½ per cent. over 13 years.
As regards indirect subsidies, about which the hon. Member asked me, I cannot give him figures as to what they are, but they have been taken into consideration when the financial arrangements have been made with the company which have resulted in that average dividend of 4½ per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that, of course, they were getting an indirect subsidy by not paying their fuel tax, but I would point out that ships fuelling on sea voyages and plying across the ocean get their fuel tax-free in the same way, and, I think, quite rightly, any aircraft leaving these shores should be able to buy their fuel at seaborne prices. Meteorological services are available not only for Imperial Airways, but for all commercial aviation, and mail payments, which he mentioned, by the Postmaster-General are for services rendered and are upon a scale that is not necessarily confined to Imperial Airways, but is given to all other air mail carriers. His total figure of subsidy, even if true, though I cannot accept it, would be still as bad, I think, under any form of Socialism, except that we should not have the position revealed so clearly that we should be able to criticise it in this House as is the case at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] Because the losses under a Socialist administration might be difficult to determine, and certainly they would not be exposed to the searchlight of frank criticism in this House. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen asked why the benefits of the shareholders in Imperial Airways should be increased for the development of civil aviation, but there is a dividend limitation in respect of Imperial Airways' shareholders, and, in fact, after 10 per cent. the Government participate as to 50 per cent. in the profits, so that I think the statement that there is no limit to the benefits to be enjoyed by the shareholders is scarcely commensurate with the facts of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to the question of pilots' pay, and here I would like to say that I am in entire sympathy with him and with other hon. Members of this House. Here we are building up a great new science, a great new commercial enterprise. We are building up a new career for a new body of men earning their living in this new profession of commercial aviation. One of my wishes is to see that commercial aviation shall become a career which will not only be confined to the active flying lives of these men, but which will be directed in such a way that when their active flying days are over, they will still be able to earn their living as useful members of the flying community, with an added wealth of knowledge and experience which they have obtained during their years of flying. I want to say that I shall use all my efforts to this end. There was a system a few years ago, broadly speaking, under which for every £100 that the pilot earned, perhaps £20 to £30 was paid in salary and the rest as payment for flying hours. The position is improved to such a degree that not 20 per cent. but probably 50 to 60 per cent. is basic pay and only the remainder represented in the payment for flying hours.
I cannot see any reason why in the future we should not get to the position where the pilot's pay should be broadly represented by something like 85 per cent. basic pay and some 15 per cent. payment on results. I think you must keep that principle of payment by results, because it is only natural that if two pilots are employed by a company, and one of them is flying and the other is not, the one who is flying might feel a sort of resentment if he was drawing the same pay as the one who was sitting on the ground, as it were. Therefore, I think you have to keep in some degree to the principle of payment by results, but I think the House will agree that we want to improve the lot of the pilots, so that theirs will be an honourable profession in which they can look forward to a lifetime of service.

Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said my speech was of varying accuracy with regard to facts. I cannot allow that to pass. In what respect did I depart from accuracy?

Captain Balfour: The hon. Member gave some figures with regard to direct

and indirect subsidies which were not in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Garro Jones: They were an estimate.

Captain Balfour: You cannot base an argument upon an estimate. That is scarcely a fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) asked whether the Cadman report's recommendation for two Under-Secretaries was to be implemented or not. I regret that I can give no information upon that point. He also asked whether other air lines as well as British Airways and Imperial Airways were eligible for subsidy. I have already stated that all internal services can apply for a subsidy. My hon. Friend asked as regards a full-time chairman of Imperial Airways and said that though the Cadman Committee had made the recommendation three months ago, nothing had been done. He also asked, if the present chairman resigned, whether he would fade out altogether. As regards that, I cannot give any information. It is a matter for the company itself. As regards the first point, I can only tell him that when the company has found a man suitable for this highly responsible position no one is more anxious than the present chairman that he should be appointed whole-time chairman. My hon. Friend asked how the £100,000 was to be divided up. I can give him no information upon that point, as the matter is still under discussion, except that it will be divided up as fairly as possible, and in accordance with the broad principles that my right hon. Friend gave the House.

Mr. R. Robinson: What steps are being taken to form a joint operating company?

Captain Balfour: That is a very complicated and difficult matter, and it is now under consideration in the Department. I cannot give any information upon it at present. I think it will be some considerable time before the complicated arrangements can be completed and information can be given to the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) asked for an assurance that no handicap will be put in the way of other companies by the Air Ministry, even if they cannot be given a subsidy, because they cannot comply with the terms that I have given to the House. No obstruction in any form will be placed by the


Air Ministry in the way of efforts by anyone who tries to develop civil aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) asked about the West Indies. My right hon. Friend is looking into the matter personally, and I shall give him such assistance as I can. We realise the very great strategic and commercial importance of obtaining a foothold for British civil aviation in that territory. I have been asked with regard to flying clubs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University said that flying for amusement was a good thing if we could persuade young men to go into the air. Already the Air Ministry is doing a very considerable amount, both in the way of subsidies to flying clubs and also through the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve training, to give young men an opportunity of flying. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that the position of flying clubs is going to be looked into in the light of their training value for defence purposes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) asked about the African extension of Imperial Airways. I think undoubtedly, considering the great difficulties that exist in developing new routes and changing over from land to marine aircraft, there is no reason for the company to be in any way ashamed of the regularity and safety of their service. The limiting factor in developing civil aviation is often not the expenditure of money but the ability to build up your ground organisation, your radio and your meteorology, and training your crews to the high degree of scientific knowledge and practical experience which is essential if you are to have safe aviation. You can easily send a commercial aeroplane from one place to another, but you cannot say that you have developed an air route by so doing. It is only after a long period of hard work with the acquisition of scientific knowledge and practical experience with your experimental fleets, that you can say you have a commercial route. My hon. and learned Friend asked about the service from Australia to New Zealand. That matter is under review, and my right hon. Friend is shortly meeting the Ministers

of the Dominions concerned in order to discuss the whole matter.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of help to civil airports. While the Government decision, in accordance with the report of the Maybury Committee and endorsed in the Cadman report, must stand, that there is to be no direct financial assistance to civil airports as such, my right hon. Friend is looking into the question of the position of these aerodromes with a view to investigating their importance in relation to Defence and their use to the Royal Air Force with a view to seeing if, by the justification of their use for defence purposes, some form of assistance can be given. He asked about the Mayo composite aircraft. I can only say that the trials have been satisfactory so far, and it is hoped that they will cross the Atlantic in the present summer. Financial assistance was given at the outset and the experiment is being developed by those commercially interested and responsible for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) asked some questions regarding the pilots who were dismissed by Imperial Airways and referred to the question of a Whitley Council. A ballot is about to take place, under proper conditions of fairness, to see whether the pilots would prefer to be represented by a domestic committee or whether they would like to be represented by the Pilots' Association.

Mr. Montague: since there is a union in existence and 80 per cent. of all the pilots of the country are members of it, why should it be ignored and treated with contempt? Why should Imperial Airways want a ballot?

Captain Balfour: I do not think it has been treated with contempt. If 80 per cent. of the pilots are members of the association they will undoubtedly vote for their union and the result of the ballot is almost a foregone conclusion. I have been going into the question of the pilots who were dismissed, and I find that five were interviewed by the Government directors, who submitted a report to my right hon. Friend stating that the dismissals were justified, that the dismissals had no connection at all with membership of the Air Lines Pilots' Association, and that proper notice was given to the pilots. In two cases recommendations were made


favourable to the pilots, in one case that the pilot should be reinstated, and in the other that he should get further employment—that, for instance, if a new joint service of British Airways and Imperial Airways were formed from London to Paris, he should be considered eligible for an appointment. [Interruption.] It would not be fair to give the names. As regards the recommendation for reinstatement, the matter was considered by the company, who do not feel able to carry it out on technical grounds. Their technical advisers, those responsible for seeing that the operations of the company are conducted with proper regard to safety, take the view that, with new types of aircraft coming along requiring a new technique, they want people with greater knowledge and experience. I have been talking to the chairman, who informs me that the board feel that they must adhere to the advice given them by their technical advisers, but they would be very willing in the first-mentioned case to assist the pilot in getting employment in any other capacity in any other company by giving him a good recommendation up to the limits of what they feel technically that they are able to do.

Mr. Montague: Why is it that the pilots concerned have not had their request for a fair inquiry into any allegations that can be made against them granted? Why should they be condemned in the dark and not be told what the trouble is?

Captain Balfour: I do not think it is fair to say they were condemned in the dark without any allegations being made against them. It has developed in the one case into a question of technical ability in relation to the technical needs of the company, and I submit that any hon. Member, if he were a director responsible for the running of the company and the safety of the passengers, he would be bound not to ignore the considered advice of the technical advisers, who have no considerations in mind except the safety for which they are responsible. As regards the case of the other pilot, the chairman of the company has given me the assurance that if and when a company is formed for the running of the London to Paris service, this pilot wishes to have some employment as a pilot in that concern, the fact that Imperial Airways are the

major shareholders will not prejudice his application for employment.

Mr. Montague: ; The Under-Secretary's statement has condemned them all.

Captain Balfour: I have done my best to answer the many points which hon. Members have raised. I shall read the Debate to-morrow, and if there are any outstanding questions needing a reply which I have not been able to cover in the compass of my remarks, I will get into direct touch with the hon. Members concerned. I would only conclude by saying that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen twitted me for being on this bench and saying that I was where I wanted to be. If I can continue an association with aviation after some 23 years active flying, and if by having been allowed to accept this office I can in any way contribute to the increased knowledge, safety and development of that service which has been closest to me both during and after the War, I am not the slightest bit ashamed of being twitted by the hon. Member.

Mr. Perkins: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the external subsidy for running services from this country to foreign countries is definitely limited to British Airways and Imperial Airways?

Captain Balfour: Yes; I read the specific words of the announcement of my right hon. Friend. It has that effect.

Sir M. Sueter: Will the Under-Secretary say something about Langstone Harbour?

Captain Balfour: I agree that we have to get on with the job. My predecessor had arranged to go down to-morrow to Southampton, and while I am not able to go to-morrow because of other pressing considerations, I hope to go next week and go into this matter.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The House will not be content to leave the question of these pilots in the position to which the hon. and gallnat Member has brought us, because it has been an almost complete restatement of the case with regard to them. During the past fortnight or so one had gathered that steps were now being taken by the Government directors, as a result of statements made in the House and of pressure exerted on the Government, to


secure that these men would be reinstated in the company. Up to the present there had never been any suggestion that any of these men were not technically qualified to carry on their job. One understood that there had been internal differences in the company, between the company and its staff, on matters that appeared at one time to be not unassociated with their desire for collective representation in their negotiations with the company. The statement now made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that after the Government directors had interviewed five of these gentlemen they came to the conclusion that two might without disadvantage to the service be re-engaged, as far as they could see from their nontechnical position.

Captain Balfour: Only one.

Mr. Ede: I understood from a statement made a few days ago by the late Under-Secretary that the number they proposed for reinstatement was two.

Captain Balfour: The position was that the Government directors reported that the dismissals of the five pilots were justified, that they had nothing to do with the Air Line Pilots' Association, and that proper notice was given. In two cases they made recommendations favourable to the pilots. In the case of one, it was that he should be considered favourably for employment should a joint enterprise be formed on the London to Paris route; and I received an assurance from the chairman this morning that should such a vacancy occur and should that pilot apply, the fact that Imperial Airways were large participants in such a company would not prejudice his application. As regards the second pilot, the directors' recommendation was that he should be reinstated in the company. That matter has been gone into by the company, and on the advice of their technical operation members, who have a weighty responsibility for the safety of the passengers, the board felt they could not reinstate this pilot.

Mr. Ede: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for putting the position so clearly. It seems to me now that the two men who were most favourably regarded by the Government directors are actually, after the hon. and

gallant Gentleman's statement, in a worse position with regard to future employment than the other three. If I were going to fly on the London to Paris service when it is inaugurated I should have some qualms if I thought the company might employ a pilot who is not regarded as technically quite sound enough to fly on some other service.

Captain Balfour: In fairness to the pilots concerned let me explain that their technical ability is not qualitative. It is ability applicable to particular forms of knowledge. You can have the most experienced land-trained pilot and you could not fly behind that pilot on a flying boat with any feeling of safety. On the other hand, you could not fly behind the most experienced marine pilot on a land route with any feeling of safety. Technical ability is not necessarily a matter of degree, but of particular application.

Mr. Montague: ; Is it not a fact that one of these two men is one of the few men in the world possessing marine and land certificates?

Captain Balfour: It would not be fair to hon. Members or to the pilots or to the company to reveal names. The hon. Member should not assume that the particular pilot he has in mind is one of the two of whom we are speaking.

Mr. Ede: In view of the interests that are involved I hope we shall be able to discuss this matter with some measure of calm. Nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said alters the view I had formed with regard to the position of these men. We ought to treat this matter as one that is outside party and the House ought to press for an inquiry into the circumstances that surrounded the original dismissals. The ground has now been entirely shifted from anything we have previously heard and the House ought to know exactly what was the cause of the dismissals and what the charges against these men were. They should be allowed to appear in front of such an inquiry and be represented by counsel so that this matter can be cleared up. We are now in the position that, after the House had been to a certain extent satisfied by the statement made by the late Under-Secretary, the recommendations of the Government directors have, whether for good reasons or bad,


now been turned down by the board; and this company, which is very heavily subsidised by the State, has asserted—it may be rightly, but I very much question whether it is so—that it cannot carry out its policy with these men on the basis of the recommendations made by the people on the board who supposedly represent the Government.

Captain Balfour: If one accepts the hon. Member's thesis, it means that because this company is subsidised by the Government there is to be no control of the personnel by the board of directors. What he says is that the board cannot dismiss men without being liable to an inquiry or if there were some objections on the part of this House. You have to leave to the company a certain freedom such as is enjoyed by any normal enterprise as regards engagement and dismissal, provided it is not improperly done. In this case the Government directors say the dismissals were justified.

Mr. Ede: I feel I ought to apologise for so frequently interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I really do not think that that last remark of his was anything other than an attempt to get another speech in. What he has said does not alter my opinion. My belief is that where we make these heavy subsidies to private enterprise we ought to be assured that the conduct of the busi-

ness in relation to its employés is above suspicion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and others will continue to press, in view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, for a full inquiry into the facts and give these men an opportunity of hearing exactly what they are supposed to have done. All that we now know is that something has been done which, in the minds of the Government directors, justified their dismissal. What it was we do not know. It was not joining the Association. It may be something qualitative with regard to their technical efficiency, but not such as entirely to debar them from employment in this company or in some allied company. To expect the House to rest content with that statement after the months we have given to this subject is to expect far too much.

Mr. Leslie: What is the purpose of the ballot? Are the men not free to join the trade union? If they are free to join it, why is a ballot to be taken?

Captain Balfour: Captain Balfourrose—

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that we are not now in Committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 108.

Division No. 212.]
AYES.
7.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Cuinness, T. L. E. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cross, R. H.
Hambro, A. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannah, I. C.


Albary, Sir Irving
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Harbord, A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denville, Alfred
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dunglass, Lord
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Ellis, Sir G.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Higgs, W. F.


Bracken, B.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hope, Captain Hon, A. O. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Hopkinson, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H, C. (Newbury)
Findlay, Sir E.
Hunter, T.


Burghley, Lord
Fleming, E. L.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Butler, R. A.
Foot, D. M.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Furness, S. N.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Clarry Sir Reginald
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Levy, T.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Lipson, D. L.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lloyd, G. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Loftus, P. C.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Lyons, A. M.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)




McCorquodale, M. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Procter. Major H. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


McKie, J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tate, Mavis C.


Macquisten, F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W,


Magnay, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Turton, R. H.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Salt, E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Seely, Sir H. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Munro, P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wamersley, Sir W. J.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)



Peake, O.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peat, C. U.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Captain Dugdale and Major Herbert.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.



Petherick, M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)



NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Poole, C. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Quibell. D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Sexton. T. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Simpson, F. B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hollins, A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stephen, C.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Bromfield, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Stokes, R. R.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lawson, J. J.
Summerskill, Edith


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cape, T.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. M[...]L.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.



Grenfell, D. R.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

" That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the maximum amount which may be paid annually by way of subsidies under Section one of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and to make provision with respect to the remuneration and expenses of, and the fees received by, any licensing authority which may be constituted under Section five of that Act, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
(a) of the amounts necessary to defray such expenses of the Secretary of State as are attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing to three million pounds the sum which the aggregate amount of the subsidies payable under all agreements made in pursuance of Section one of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and in pursuance of the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Act, 1930, must not exceed in any financial year;
(b) of such remuneration to the members of any licensing authority constituted by an Order in Council under Section five of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, as may be approved by the Treasury; and
(c) of the amounts necessary to defray such expenses of any licensing authority constituted by an Order in Council under the said Section five as may be approved by the Treasury; and
(2) the payment into the Exchequer of any amount received by way of fees by such a licensing authority as aforesaid and paid by that authority to the Secretary of State."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir K. Wood.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION ACT, 1936.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section five of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, praying that the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order, 1938, be made in the terms of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir K. Wood.]

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: We are not opposing this Motion, but we should like to take the opportunity of getting some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, whom

I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating upon his promotion. Under Section 3 of this Order the licensing authority is to consist of members who are to be paid and we should like to know what salaries are to be paid. Under Section 33 a licence fee is to be charged, and we should like to know whether any estimate has been formed of what the yield from these licence fees will be. Finally there is the question of the relations between those to whom these licences are granted and their employés. After this no one will be able to carry on this trade without a licence and, therefore, this will become a quasi monopoly, consisting of a number of firms or persons who cannot fear competition except in so far as the licensing authority is willing to grant new licences.
Therefore, it is extremely important, in view of the Debate which has just taken place, that we should know exactly what the relations between these firms or persons and their employés is likely to be and I desire that the Minister should give us some specific assurances. Under Section 7, when some firm comes forward to apply for a licence certain persons and bodies have a locus to object, including the council of any county or county borough or district, any person providing transport by air for passengers or goods— that is to say a rival company—the owner of an aerodrome or a public Department. Will the Minister explain why the representatives of the employés are not to have a similar locus? Suppose that a firm proposed to start a new air line. Why should not the Airline Pilots' Union, which appears to be the union to which all the pilots have adhered, be allowed to come before an inquiry and to say, "We do not think this firm is fit to receive a licence"? I cannot understand why a right of objection should be given to various bodies and persons and yet be denied to the representatives of that most important section of people, those who fly the machines.
Further on that same point, Clause 18 purports to apply to these new licensed air lines the ordinary provisions of the famous resolution of this House called the Fair Wages Clause, but there is a difference. When a contract is given out by this House, one of the conditions is that there must be a Fair Wages Clause in it; that is to say, a builder employed under some contract for which this House


is responsible must be paid the wage which is current among good employers in the building trade. You thus have a yardstick by which you can measure wages and conditions of employment. In the case of these pilots I do not see what yardstick you can have, because everybody employed in the carriage of goods by air will be in and will be subject to the licensing authority. Everybody in the business will now be licensed. What possible outside standard is there by which you can measure the conditions of employment, wages, and so forth, which should apply to the pilot?
When I turn to Clause 30, I think there must be some good reason for it and that my reading of it is not correct. It imposes a penalty upon any air line which transgresses the conditions laid down in the licence. Those conditions are many. They sometimes refer to safety, but they refer to many other things as well. The one condition to which the penalty does not apply, should it be transgressed by an air line, is the fair wages condition. There must be some explanation of that, because I cannot see why we should go out of our way to say:
 Any person who uses an aircraft in contravention of this Order, and any person being the holder of a licence who fails to comply with any condition attached to the licence other than the condition as to fair wages and conditions of employment shall be liable…to a fine.
I cannot understand why it should be necessary to put in a penalty for a number of comparatively unimportant infringements and why there should appear to be no remedy in the case of the important one. I imagine there must be something; appeal to the Industrial Court, or something to cover the point.
In the Debate which took place this afternoon statements were made which will have shown to anyone who approached the matter independently that the English air-line companies have an objection to what we understand by trade unionism. The Under-Secretary of State for Air, who is to be congratulated upon his new post, told us about the dismissal of the men. He defended the dismissal in terms with which he was of course supplied by those who have the information, but which those of us who know about industrial disputes recognise as the sort of explanation and excuse frequently given by employers who want to dismiss

people whom they find awkward or too independent. What surprised me about the information was that the men were dismissed because they were technically inefficient.

Captain Balfour: One was not re-engaged, because he was not technically suitable. The others were dismissed. did not give the reasons.

Mr. Benn: One was dismissed—

Captain Balfour: Not re-employed There is a difference.

Mr. Benn: Anyway, he has not got the job. He is regarded as technically unsuitable. I quite understand the difference that is made. I am putting forward a plea for the introduction of the trade union. When was it found out that it was not safe to employ this man upon a certain type of machine? They did not find it out until they had a dispute with him on some other ground. What sort of technical experts are they who are supposed to be responsible for the efficiency of the pilots and who employed this man for so long without discovering that he was not suitable for this type of machine? That is the point. The Minister, when it is necessary to defend the non-re-employment—which I should call dismissal—of this man on account of his activities in other matters, produces this explanation about technical unsuitability.
All these things point to the necessity for recognition by the licensing authority of the constituted trade union of the pilots. There is no question about its being representative, and I do not thing the Minister challenges the statement the it is a thoroughly representative body I have asked for some money figure; particularly on the question of the conditions under the Fair Wages Clause, what locus the pilot may have when new company comes forward and asks for a licence, and for recognition of the trade union by the new licensing authority.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. R. Robinson: I rise to ask two questions concerning this Order. The first is upon Section 16 which, I take it is intended to put a stop to the ban which has existed in the past on air-line bookings. Railway air services will have to be licensed by this authority, if the are to ply, and therefore Section 16


would prevent railway air services, and the railway companies who are financially interested in them, from placing any ban on air-line bookings. I congratulate the Government upon the intention of that Section and I would like the Under-Secretary to say how far it goes. Can we say that the Railway Clearing House as such, the body which makes the ban, has a financial interest in railway air services? Each of the individual railway companies is interested because it holds shares, and the Clearing House as such is not interested because it holds no shares. Is it possible for the railway companies to keep up the ban and to throw the blame upon the Clearing House, which is an outside body? The Section, as far as it goes, meets the point, and I congratulate the Government sincerely upon the courageous way in which they have tackled the matter.
The other point is one which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State will answer very quickly. What is the position under this licensing order of an air-taxi company. I understand that there will be a monopoly on each route between one town and another for a certain company, but I do not see how that monopoly can cover the position of the air-taxi, which is entirely a different business. The owner of the air-taxi line may have to go at any time from one town to any other town.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Perkins: I also have questions to put to the Under-Secretary of State, the first of which relates to the question of appeal. I understand that the licensing authority will have dictatorial powers. Whatever verdict they give must stand, and an aggrieved person will have no right of appeal. Under the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1933, provision was definitely made by this House for a right of appeal, but for some mysterious reason that right has been left out in this case. I should like to ask why it has been left out. Next is the question of costs. As I understand this Order in Council, practically anyone who owns an aerodrome may lodge a frivolous or a vindictive opposition against the granting of a licence. I can conceive of someone bringing forward opposition on account of spite and putting a company to a great deal of legal expense. The company may have to brief counsel to argue their case before the licensing authority. In previous

Orders in Council, licensing authorities have had the power to award costs, but in this case the licensing authority has not that power. Why has it been left out?
On the question of the railway booking ban I am very thankful that that business has now been finished and that it will not longer be necessary for Members of this House to block all railway Bills and generally to make ourselves a nuisance. I would ask the Under-Secretary when the ban is likely to be lifted. I do not quite understand when the Order in Council will become operative, when the licensing authority will get to work and when the ban now in force on certain air lines will be lifted. I should very much welcome any information he can give me on those points.

7.56 p.m.

Captain Balfour: The first question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman had reference to the fees or salaries to be paid. Those have not yet been decided. The matter is now being considered by the Treasury. It may be that the payment will be upon an attendance basis. As regards the yield, if it is estimated to be £10 per application approximately £300 will be directly accruing from the applications. As to their being no locus for representatives of the employés, the reason is that employés are adequately safeguarded by the fact that anyone granted a licence from the licensing authority has to apply the Fair Wages Clause. The authority, in their turn, have the power to take away the licence should any of the provisions upon which it has been granted be transgressed.
In regard to the yardstick to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he made the point that there is no yardstick for pilots employed on air lines, in regard to fair wages, because every line will now be licensed and there is, as it were, a closed ring. The answer is that there will be people outside the ring of licensed transport undertakings, in the form of chartered companies, pilots engaged on tuition work and pilots engaged on similar commercial work with other lines in other parts of the Dominions. I think there is a recognised standard, which I hope will become an increasingly higher one as aviation is carried further, for the minimum level which should be applied to the valuable services rendered to-day by commercial


pilots. Section 30 of the Order will be dealt with in one moment by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that among these air companies there was an objection to trade unions at the present time, but I do not think that is so at all. To base such a statement on the incident which was discussed in the previous Debate, in regard to Imperial Airways pilots, is to draw a general conclusion from a specific instance. In this case it is an erroneous conclusion. I must refer once more to the question of the pilots—

Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to continue the debate on pilots which took place on the previous Order. To answer questions raised in another debate would not be in order in this debate.

Mr. Benn: That is so, but may I submit respectfully that Section 18 refers to the question of recognition of a trade union, and seeking the advice of the Industrial Court? Would not that be in order?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but reference to the dismissal of pilots would be out of order in this debate.

Captain Balfour: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) asked me about Section 16, which refers to the removal of the ban on booking facilities. I can give to the House and my hon. Friend a full assurance that there is now no question of that ban being continued, and, when the Order comes into operation, the ban will be entirely lifted. I should like to say here that, before this provision was put into the Order, the railway companies had intimated to my predecessor that they were agreeable to the removal of the ban, and that they were removing it, so I think the position is satisfactory.

Mr. Robinson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the ban will be lifted?

Captain Balfour: They are removing the ban, and the. position is formally corrected in the Draft Order.

Mr. Perkins: Is not the ban still operating?

Captain Balfour: We have not yet passed the legislation, but it is part of

the general scheme, and I think that, in a month or two at the outside, the necessary machinery will be set up and the ban will then disappear.
As regards air taxis, Section 2 of the Order includes all journeys performed by aircraft on which passengers are carried for hire or reward at separate fares, and all journeys on which goods are carried, other than a journey on which a single consignor has the exclusive right to have his goods carried in the aircraft. It excludes, however, ordinary joy-riding which is not incidental to the journey as a whole.
As regards the question of appeal, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), that question was very carefully considered, and it was decided that it would not be practicable to appoint an appeal tribunal. The licensing authority itself is an impartial body, and an appeal would simply mean appealing from one impartial tribunal to another impartial tribunal. Even if the Secretary of State were made the appeal tribunal, the criticism might be made that he would not be impartial from the Departmental point of view and from the point of view of Service responsibility. There is, however, a safeguard, in that, should it appear that the licensing authority have acted outside their jurisdiction, legal redress is available to any aggrieved party. I would also refer to Section 3, which gives the Secretary of State power to appoint further members of the licensing authority. In the very unlikely event of the licensing authority behaving in some incomprehensible or extraordinary way, it would be within the power of the Secretary of State to swamp them by appointing a predominance of other members. The only other point is that with reference to Section 13, with which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal.

8.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General(Sir Donald Somervell): My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) asked whether it would be possible for the licensing authority to award costs. It would be contrary to precedent to give to a body other than a recognised court the power to award costs, and, if such power were given, there would be no machinery for the taxation of costs and so on. The


somewhat similar tribunals—commissioners and so on—set up under the Road Traffic Act have no such power to award costs. Under Section 7 of the Order, the number of people who can object is limited, and one hopes, at any rate, that none of the persons or bodies indicated in Section 7 would bring frivolous objections, or that, if they did, the licensing authority would see to it that very little time, and, therefore, money, was spent in considering such objections.
With regard to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) with reference to Section 30, I am not surprised that the exception caught his eye, and that he asked about it, but I think that, if he will look at Section 18, with which he will be familiar, he will see that a provision covering a penalty on summary conviction would be quite inappropriate in the case of a breach or suggested breach of the provisions of Section 18. The machinery there set out is that, if a complaint is made, unless it is otherwise disposed of or shown to have no foundation, or is completely clear and admitted, the Industrial Court is to be asked for its advice, and the licensing authority are to be guided by that advice; and if, having received that advice, they are satisfied that the conditions have been broken, they can revoke the licence. I think that that is the right procedure for this part of the Order.

Mr. Benn: Do I understand that, if the complaint is otherwise disposed of, the person who under the Order has the right to make an objection loses his status as an objector?

The Attorney-General: Anybody can raise an objection before the licensing authority that the conditions are not being complied with. The words "otherwise disposed of" are put in to meet the case where, for one reason or another, there is no doubt. For instance, the licensing authority may come to the conclusion that the complaint is purely frivolous, and that there has been no breach of the Order, and in such a case it would be quite inappropriate to compel them to take advice on a matter in regard to which there was nothing to ask advice about. Equally, if, on investigating a complaint, the breach was found to be so plain that the licensee admitted it, there again there would be nothing to ask advice about.

Mr. Benn: Then there is no penalty?

The Attorney-General: They can revoke the licence, and, surely, that is a most effective penalty.

Resolved,

" That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, praying that the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order, 1938, be made in the terms of the draft laid before Parliament."

Orders of the Day — EVIDENCE BILL [Lords].

Order [16th May] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Mr. H. G. Strauss.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ABYSSINIA.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I desire to raise the present position in Abyssinia. At Geneva last week, His Majesty's Government obtained freedom of action in respect of the recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. They did so in circumstances which, I think it will be generally agreed, inflicted the greatest humiliation on the League since its inception. Only two countries, Russia and New Zealand, had the moral courage to remain steadfast in their adherence to the principles of the Covenant. Never was there a greater betrayal of moral and legal responsibility. But the position is made worse because of the actual situation that exists in that unhappy country. I can find no precedent for the recognition of a Government de jure except with the fulfilment of certain requirements. I have very carefully examined the legal authorities which govern this matter, and I find it has always been accepted that conquest or complete subjugation implies the permanent subjection of the occupied


country to the sovereignty of the occupying force. At the Hague Conference of 1907, it was agreed that territory should only be considered occupied which is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. Occupation, therefore, applies only to territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. I submit that these requirements have not been fulfilled in the case of the Italian occupation of Abyssinia.
What are facts? I think that, in order to present a clear picture summarising the state of affairs in Abyssinia, it will be convenient to deal with the country according to its various provinces. I have here information which has been supplied to His Majesty's Government, first, in a document published under the authority of the Emperor of Ethiopia, and, secondly, in documents supplied by the League representative of the Ethiopian Government at the recent Council meeting of the League. According to these documents, the position would appear to be as follows: First of all, in the north and north-west provinces of Abyssinia, during last autumn and throughout recent months there appears to have been energetic opposition to the Italian operations, which opposition has sometimes developed into fighting on a considerable scale. There have been revolts in the provinces of Tembien and Sokota under Dejaz Hailu Kabbade, one of the leaders, and further to the north-east, in Tigre, under the chieftain, Dejazmatch Gabe Hewot. In other provinces, Begumeder and Lasta, there has been almost continuous fighting, resulting in the destruction of Italian posts and the capture of supply columns. The Ethiopian Legation in London published on 25th January this year a statement based on despatches received from the various chieftains in Abyssinia. I will quote:
 Flying and mechanised columns of the Italian Army have tried to recapture posts evacuated or lost some months ago. Despite the ceaseless activity of the Italian Air Force, which continues to make use of bombs and gas, these attempts have never had more than ephemeral success. The desertion of three battalions of Eritrean troops has reinforced the resisting troops in the Northern regions with arms and ammunition, and has completed the disorder of the Italian staff officers who ' manifest evident signs of despair.' 
Then follows a list of the losses sustained by the invading Italian Forces.

It shows that in the northern and northwestern regions those killed included 11 senior officers, five junior officers—of whom one was a lieutenant and the remaining four junior officers of the transport and radio department, together with 5,993 Italian and Askari soldiers. It says that the number of Ethiopian warriors killed during these engagements was equally large. A considerable number of rifles, field artillery, machine guns, and ammunition were captured from the enemy. I pass to the western provinces, where severe fighting apparently has been taking place.
Here I quote from the document submitted to the League Council last week by M. Taezaz, the permanent delegate of Ethiopia at Geneva, He exhibited in the documents he presented to the League Council a report from one of the Abyssinian chieftains to the Emperor. This sets out full particulars, gives the dates and places of the battles, the number of Italian casualties, and the amount of material captured from the Italians. Here are the particulars: August, 1937, at Sécoula, three Italian officers, 300 Italian soldiers and 400 native soldiers were killed, and the material captured consisted of two cannon, 218 rifles, three machine guns. September, 1937, at Danguela, two Italian officers, 228 Italian soldiers and 300 native soldiers killed. October, 1937, at Adiet, two officers, 140 Italian soldiers and 1,200 native soldiers killed; material captured: three cannon, 1,136 rifles, seven machine guns. Later in November, 1937, at Goumaré, three Italian officers, 17 Italian soldiers and 117 native soldiers killed, five cannon, 717 rifles and eight machine guns captured. The latest engagement apparently took place at Wombers, in November, 1937, where two Italian officers, 58 Italian soldiers, and 428 native soldiers were killed, while the material captured consisted of one cannon, 146 rifles, and three machine guns. That is a report received from this Abyssinian general and sent to the Emperor of Abyssinia on 12th February this year.
In the centre of Abyssinia, it is alleged that there have been revolts, under Dejaz Fikre Mariam, in which the railway to Jibuti itself has been frequently attacked. Ethiopian armed troops are frequently raiding the main roads leading from Addis


Ababa to the north and west. Early in March, Italian troops were sent to guard the road from Dessie to Addis Ababa, which has been frequently harassed by Abyssinians. In the south and southwest there are Italian garrisons only at five towns: namely, Djirem, Yirga-Alem, Mega, Goba and Ginir. All other parts of the territory have had to be evacuated owing to the pressure of numerous guerilla bands. In the provinces of Gura-farda, Gimirra and Kaffa many Italian garrisons have been forced to withdraw, and the roads have been made unsafe. In the south-east, it is reported that in recent months there have been numerous attacks on Italian convoys on the roads by armed Abyssinians. Between Harar and Jigjiga more than 9,000 native troops have deserted from the Italian army with arms. It is alleged that the Italians exercise no control whatever over the provinces of Danakil and Aussa.
The general position in Abyssinia will be appreciated better, I think, if it is realised that over at least three-quarters of the country the Italian authorities have no military control beyond an area varying from 10 to 30 miles radius around the larger towns. In fact, over at least half of the country there is no military control, the military posts only maintaining their distance through military fortifications and the troops unable to penetrate the hilly and mountainous regions. Throughout the north, south, and southwest the greater part of the country is still under the authority of Ethiopian chieftains.
Therefore, it follows; first, that the country is in a continuous state of opposition to the invader over large areas; secondly, that the Italian troops have not occupied the country completely; thirdly, that their military posts which have not been destroyed or withdrawn are in many cases on the defensive; fourthly, that the growing ascendancy of the Ethiopian troops over a large part of the country is due to the fact that there has taken place co-ordination of plans between widely separated commands. These facts are contained in statements submitted to the League by the Emperor and his advisers, but we can find corroboration to some extent in publications which, I think, would merit the confidence even of hon. Members opposite. Leading newspapers of this country like the "Times," the

"Sunday Times" and the "Daily Telegraph" have repeatedly reported facts which seem to corroborate the claims of the Emperor of Ethiopia. I find that in the "Times" of 26th November, 1937, it states:
The improvement in the internal situation that was expected after the rains is Still far from apparent.
It is expected that the usual rainy season will commence in the next week or so, and that may to some extent explain why the Italian Government are so anxious to hasten the recognition of their so-called conquest of Ethiopia before it becomes only too obvious that it is not justified. The "Times" goes on to say:
 The roads leading from Addis Ababa to Jimma and Gore have both been cut recently within 50 miles of the capital, with the result that transport has to proceed under convoy ….
So far as can be judged, the economic position is moving from bad to worse …. The resistance of the native inhabitants in passive forms seems to be working as a factor of attrition.
The "Sunday Times," 30th January, 1938, refers to the fact that:
There have been serious economic difficulties facing the Italians in Abyssinia showing that trade is virtually at a standstill.
The "Daily Telegraph" of 2nd February, 1938, says that:
the Italian occupation is firmly established in Addis Ababa and within some 50 miles radius round that city, and in cities such as Harar and Diredawa, but in the greater part of these regions, where the lack of roads makes the quick movement of troops impossible, the native chieftains still hold sway. It is estimated that only about one-third of the arms they possessed at the close of the war against the Italians have been surrendered to their conquerors.
The "Evening News" of 14th February, 1938, states:
According to a report from a very reliable source large numbers of troops, mostly native forces, left Addis Ababa recently to suppress a serious revolt.
Six weeks ago the Abyssinian Legation stated that it had received reports of apparent opposition to Italian rule in Abyssinia. In the past two months, according to these reports, the Italians have lost 6,000 officers and men killed, including natives. This claim was immediately denied in Rome, where it was officially stated:
 Italy is in complete control of every part of Abyssinia.


The following day the official Italian newspaper admitted that severe fighting had occurred in Abyssinia last September. I could continue to quote from other leading newspapers evidence supporting the claims of the Emperor of Ethiopia that, at the present time, the Italian Government are not in complete possession and control of the territory of Abyssinia, and that, on the contrary, their effective control is restricted to certain of the large cities and a certain radius from those cities, that large parts of the country are under the control of Abyssinian chieftains, and that large armed forces under their command are engaged in carrying on intensive warfare against the Italian military and armed forces. If that be so, how can it be argued that, under all prevailing concepts of international law, the Italian Government are entitled to be recognised as the de jure Government of that country?
If the Government say that they are not prepared to accept the allegations that have been put forward by the Abyssinian Government, is it not all the more reason why some sort of inquiry should be held in order to ascertain the true facts of the case? The Government, for reasons of their own, refuse to support the suggestion that an inquiry should be held. They have not, at any rate up to date, refuted the case put forward by the Ethiopian Emperor. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Minister to-day to prove to the satisfaction of all sections of opinion that there is no truth and no substance in the allegations and the claims put forward by the Emperor of Ethiopia, and that, in fact, there is conclusive proof that the Italian Government are in complete control of the whole of Abyssinia. Unless he can do that, we on this side of the House are entitled to resist with all the means at our disposal, what is nothing short of the gross betrayal of another country belonging to the League of Nations.

8.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I noticed that the hon. Gentleman opened his speech with a general remark about the recent activities of my Noble Friend at Geneva. He will excuse me, I am sure, if I do not enlarge my remarks to-night and enter into the broader considerations

with which he opened his speech, but confine myself to saying that I cannot accept the interpretation which he ascribed to the action of His Majesty's Government and to the activities of my Noble Friend. The reason why I will not go further into that subject to-night is that the Opposition are again raising a subject equivalent to this to-morrow night, namely, the recent session of the Council at Geneva and the steps taken there by His Majesty's Government. I quite appreciate the point that has been put to-night, and I will confine myself to the question of Italian control of Ethiopia. I think that that will be accepted by the hon. Member.
There are two aspects of the information which the hon. Gentleman has given to the House, which I would like to bring to the attention of hon. Members. The information given—and he has read part of that information from certain documents —has been drawn from documents which must be acknowledged to come from a prejudiced source. I do not want to impart any bitterness into what I am going to say, but it is important to be quite clear that a large amount of the information given by the hon. Gentleman has simply been passed on by him to the House from the Ethiopian Legation, and, therefore, we must look at it as being information of an interested kind, and attach all the more importance to the source from which it comes. The second aspect of his information to which I want to draw the attention of hon. Members is the fact that our reports go to show that his information is not up to date.
The hon. Gentleman devoted considerable time to extracts from a document issued by the Ethiopian Legation on the subject of hostilities which took place in Ethiopia, and he made the contention that there was fighting of a severe character in Ethiopia last September. I do not deny that there has been fighting, but I would point out that we are now considering the position in Ethiopia in this month of this year, and that much of the information which he has given to the House comes from a date last year, when we do not deny that fighting took place. I do not mean by saying this that I accept the details which the hon. Gentleman has given to the House as being correct. I do not. I want, therefore, to draw the attention of the House to the


important fact that this information, incorrect as we believe it to be, is derived from a somewhat distant date, whereas the information which I have put before hon. Members is, we consider, up to date.

Mr. A. Henderson: The Under-Secretary will remember that I quoted the date on the document which related to the fighting in Abyssinia, which was submitted, and it is dated February, 1938.

Mr. Butler: The document is dated February, 1938, but our information goes to show that the information in that document is not up to date. That further emphasises the point that I was making.
I will now try to deal with the situation in general, and afterwards with some of the points which have been raised by the hon. Member. Our information generally as regards the military situation shows that, although in one or two limited areas there is resistance to Italian authority on the part of some of the inhabitants, the Italian Government are in control of virtually the whole country, and that in present circumstances, as has already been said by spokesmen of His Majesty's Government, that control could only be upset by a successful war, which it would be beyond the power of the natives of Ethiopia to achieve, and which I do not think any foreign Power would be ready to undertake.
Early in the year and at the end of last year the Italians, so we are informed, experienced considerable difficulties in areas to the North, West and South-West of Addis Ababa but, since the arrival of 20 battalions of Blackshirt militia, pacification has proceeded and no serious trouble is now being experienced except in the mountains of the Gojjam province, which is an area to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention and which, I ought to say, was always a sector of disaffection. He will perhaps remember that the Emperor himself was obliged to detach troops from the main theatre of the war to deal with disloyal tribes in this area. Two other tribes to which the hon. Member has drawn attention which have caused the Italians trouble—the Azebu Gallas and the Danakils—were frequently troublesome to the Emperor, but as a result of the introduction of the 20 battalions of Blackshirt militia, and of certain Italian

air action, such tribal bands are becoming unwelcome in those districts, because their presence draws undesirable attention to the neighbourhood. If such bands go to a neighbourhood, their presence is not welcomed by the local inhabitants. With these exceptions in the mountainous area of the Gojjam province, which has always given trouble, and which is an extremely difficult and untraceable region, and the particular tribal areas that I have mentioned, owing to the Italian reinforcements and the Italian air action, I maintain that our claims that Italy is in control of virtually the whole of Abyssinia is correct.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Under-Secretary say where the information comes from that the rebel bands are unwelcome?

Mr. Butler: We get our information from a variety of sources in Abyssinia, but mostly from our Consuls. I have been asked by the hon. Member to make a statement and I am giving a statement of fact, based on the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, as clearly as I can. I have given all the details as well as the only exception, so far as we can ascertain, to a complete Italian occupation.

Sir Stafford Cripps: Will the Minister be good enough to tell us whether the Consuls get their information from Italian sources?

Mr. Butler: The Consuls get their information from a variety of sources, and they get it also through their own investigations. Consuls have made journeys in various districts of Abyssinia and have gleaned information from their own observations. It has been said in public propaganda on this subject that the Italians are only present in garrisons occupying fortified posts. That is true in the main, but there is no reason to deduce from the fact that, because the Italians are garrisoning the country in fortified posts, they are not in complete control of the country. There is really no practicable alternative method of occupying a backward and potentially hostile country. Over great areas climatic conditions render complete occupation difficult from a military point of view, and the most economical method of disposing troops is to establish garrisons of some size in strongly fortified posts whence, if


necessary, troops may be moved to deal with any outbreaks of disaffection.
The hon. Member referred to the fact that the railway had been attacked. There is a phrase in the memorandum which we have seen that the railway and the Massawa-Addis Ababa road had been frequently attacked. We have no corroboration of the statement that this railway has been attacked to the extent of dislocating traffic since a date in 1936. The main road between Massawa and Addis Ababa has in recent months only suffered one serious interruption, when 25 lorries, laden with petrol, were destroyed in March. Therefore, I think the claim of the hon. Member in respect of these particular communications is, like the rest of his material, exaggerated. That, I think, answers in general the points raised by the hon. Member.
I could deal with other points in the memoranda to which the hon. Member has referred. I could develop some of the economic points, the point of criticism, for instance, which has been made in the memorandum published by the League of Nations Union about the economic situation. I would say that there are many points in this regard that are exaggerated, just in the same way as the military information in the hon. Member's possession is, to our way of thinking, much exaggerated. It has been said that the Abyssinians would not do road work, but our information, which has been obtained from our Consul, is that the payment to the natives is now regarded as satisfactory, having been fixed by the Fascist organisation at a reasonable level.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: How much?

Mr. Butler: I cannot at the moment give the exact details, but that is the information that has been given to us. Roadmaking, hon. Members will recollect, did much to develop Morocco and made such a difference in the ability of the Foreign Legion to help France to pacify Morocco, and a roadmaking policy is being carried out in Abyssinia The making of roads is going ahead much more than has been the case in the past, and on a much more satisfactory basis. That is one further example of the information in our possession, which justifies the statements that we have made in this House.
The hon. Member, in summing up his information, read from the Ethiopian document a statement that three-fourths of the country were outside the control of the Italians. I would ask hon. Members whether after listening to the facts that I have put before them they can honestly say that that statement is true, or whether it is not truer to say that the Italian Government are in control of virtually the whole country. That is the conclusion we have come to after studying up-to-date information, not from prejudiced sources but from observations on the spot. That is the information which I give to the House in the confident assertion that hon. Members will prefer facts from such sources to information which must have come from the sources which I earlier described. In conclusion I should not do justice to the hon. Member if I did not repeat that, in view of the information in our possession, we are not willing to concede the granting of an inquiry of an international character, and thereby confirm the answer I gave him on that subject at Question Time.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure the House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for the statement he has made. He will forgive me if I say that the spirit of his speech was indicated by his use of the word "pacification." The value of his information depends upon his credulity, and his credulity can be measured by the fact that he tells us that the Fascist Government have established a reasonable rate of wages for the Abyssinians, but he does not know what that rate of wages is.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member knows that for various reasons I have had rather short notice. I have given the House up-to-date information on the subject, and needless to say I could have obtained more detailed information if I had had more time. I think the hon. Member would be wiser to restrict himself to the general subject and not make points such as that I am not informed on any particular point.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Member, and I agree that he has been given rather short notice. We shall put down a question on the rate of wages paid by the Fascist Government, and we shall then discover whether they are reasonable or not. His Majesty's


Government have assumed in their policy, beginning some months ago, that the war in Abyssinia was over when sanctions were raised; and the picture which the Under-Secretary of State has painted to-night is, broadly speaking, that of a Government which has undisputed sovereignty of the country with a smoothly working administration. In spite of what he has told us, I assert that nothing of the kind is true. The true situation is that Signor Mussolini, in his third year of his Covenant-breaking war, has had a more costly campaign than ever before, and that he is no nearer conquest than when sanctions were taken off.
The Under-Secretary of State has said that the information given by my hon. Friend was from Ethiopian sources, that Ethiopian sources were interested sources and that, therefore, presumably the information was unreliable. He said further that it was out of date. I submit that the Ethiopians are extremely likely to know the true facts about their own country, more likely than other people; and that they have no real interest to disguise the facts. If the country is really conquered, if the people want to accept the Italians as their rulers, why does not the Emperor accept the large sum of money which the Italian Government have offered him and allow the whole question to be ended? He does not, because he knows that the country is not conquered. I want to submit, in addition to the evidence given by my hon. Friend, certain supplementary information which comes not from Ethiopian sources but from British sources and newspapers, and, moreover, information which is up to date. I admit that it is not in agreement with the information which His Majesty's Government have received. But I am not greatly impressed that it is not in agreement with what the Under-Secretary of State has told us.
In 1937 the Government used to say, day after day that all that we learned about Spain was untrue. We relied on British journalists, who reported what was happening in the Press. We were told that their information was not true. But on the 21st February, 1938, the late Foreign Secretary told us that it was true, that the journalists had been right and the Government wrong. I suggest

that the journalists are right now. The Italian Government have made it much more difficult to obtain information about Abyssinia than it was about Spain. His Majesty's Government had some 56 diplomatic and consular agents in Spain; they have only two consular posts in Abyssinia, and the Consuls cannot find it very easy to travel. I suggest that the information which comes from the sources I shall cite is true, in this case, as it was in the case of Spain. I begin with an article in the "Times," which I admit is a little out of date, for it was published on 8th October, 1937. There was a sentence in that article which my hon. Friend did not quote:
 With the exception of the bigger towns and the provinces where the means of communication are such that military aid can be secured quickly in case of emergency, Abyssinia is governed by Abyssinian chieftains who carry on a guerilla warfare against the Italians, harrassing them at every opportunity.
The correspondent gives details of particular actions and says that the Abyssinian population have almost entirely abandoned their lands and that agriculture is a thing of the past. They are engaged in war. That article was printed on the very day on which there appeared a letter in the "Times" from one of Signor Mussolini's agents saying that order was perfect in the country, and I believe that the "Times" article was a direct reply to that letter. But I come now to evidence which is a little more up to date. On the 16th February this year, five days before the Prime Minister began his negotiations with Signor Mussolini, and when he was already in constant personal contact with Signor Grandi, the "Daily Telegraph" printed a report from their Aden correspondent in which he said:
It is learned here that a detachment of 500 Italians was annihilated recently as a result of a ruse by Abyssinian tribesmen in the Minjar country. Serious revolts have broken out in Gojjam, north-west of Addis-Ababa, and in the extreme south. It is now learned that the Wallega district in Western Abyssinia is also affected.
A little later an article in the "Daily Express" said very much the same thing. In February the "Evening Standard" reported:
Refugees arriving here"—
that is Port Said—
in French steamers told further stories of the daily massacre of hundreds of Italian


troops in Abyssinia. The refugees declared that Italian forces are in great distress because of the shortness of provisions. There is a famine in Addis-Ababa. The people are eating cats, dogs and monkeys. Bands of Abyssinian soldiers attack Italian outposts almost every night.
I come still more up to date in the sense that I now desire to give the Under-Secretary information which was printed in the month of May. I referred to it at Question Time to-day. It is the information of a Frenchman who went to Abyssinia and was with the Abyssinian army. He went in from Kenya and travelled by Lake Rudolph into the South of the country. This is what he says:
 While the diplomatists are trying to work out the most suitable way to recognise the Italian conquest, I have been watching the Abyssinians carry on the war against the invaders. Although Europe may have lost sight of it, that war is as real as the existence of an independent Abyssinia with its own capital. Gore, its own Government, and its own army. I have just returned to Europe after sharing the life of the army for several weeks.
He described a number of actions he saw; how the Abyssinians are able to destroy Italian crops; and he gives a picture which, I think, would convince even the Under-Secretary that the administration of the Italians is not working so smoothly as they might desire. He also gives a map, showing one great area which is independent, and another great area in which there is continual guerilla fighting. To that there must be added the area of the Gojjam Provinces which the Minister himself has admitted are in revolt.
To this evidence we can add that of two great British authorities. I venture to say that there is no higher authority in the world on Africa than Lord Lugard. A few days ago Lord Lugard wrote to the "Times" as follows:
 Replies to questions in the House have withheld from the public the real situation in Abyssinia, because His Majesty's Government were unable to confirm reports of which they had no definite proof, but there is undeniable evidence that it is very critical—and the rains are shortly due when it may become more so.
That is supplemented by the evidence of another very high authority on Africa, Miss Margery Perham of Oxford. As everybody knows, Miss Margery Perham is a great African traveller. She wrote a letter to the "Times," dated 29th April, saying that she had just returned from

the Abyssinian frontier, where, if anywhere, one is likely to hear the truth. She said:
 There is evidence to show that the conquest is by no means a historical fact, and that the increasing vigour of the Abyssinian struggle for freedom, with Italy's growing financial difficulties, might, during the coming rains, induce Rome to compromise with the huge task she has undertaken.
She goes on:
 Even were the conquest complete it would still be only the beginning of the Abyssinian problem. Few if any subject people has ever had such strong and abiding stimulus to nationalism as the Abyssinians, whether in their character, their long and independent history, or in a struggle to defend their freedom in which the world openly justified them against their aggressors.
I venture to say that that evidence, which is confirmed by many other travellers with whom I have spoken, who have come back from those parts of the world, tends to show that His Majesty's Government, perhaps, have not got the whole of the facts and that here is, at least very real doubt—1 do not wish to overstate it—about the military and administrative situation in Abyssinia to-day. I would add that I have this morning received information, from sources which have always proved reliable in the past, that there has been heavy fighting near Addis Ababa during the last fortnight, that a very important personality in the Italian administration was wounded outside Addis Ababa not long ago, and that two attacks have been made on Addis Ababa itself. In these circumstances, what do the Government propose? They have gone to Geneva and they have suggested that members of the League should set aside—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Captain Bourne): I understood that notice had been given that the question of what the Government did at Geneva was to be raised tomorrow. I warn the hon. Member that if he raises it to-night, he may be anticipating to-morrow's Debate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not desire to go outside your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was simply suggesting that the action of the Government at Geneva ought to depend upon the real facts of the situation. If you desire that I should not proceed with that part of what I intended to say, I will leave it out. But in conclusion, I must recall that the law of the Covenant in this matter is perfectly


clear, that Article 10, which, as President Wilson said, is the heart of the Covenant, has twice been interpreted, by a unanimous resolution of the Committee of Twelve of the Council of the League, and by the unanimous resolution of the Assembly of the League; and that the Assembly said:
It is incumbent upon the Members of the League of Nations not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris.
I suggest that even if, as Miss Perham says, the conquest of Abyssinia were complete—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Notice has been given that this question will be raised on the Adjournment to-morrow, and the hon. Member must not go into the question of Geneva. The hon. Member for Kingswin-ford (Mr. Henderson) raised, quite properly, the question of the accuracy of the Government's information about Abyssinia, but if hon. Members go into the question of the Government's action at Geneva, it may affect the Debate tomorrow.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) raised the question of the situation in Abyssinia, with reference to the despatch of a commission of inquiry. It is to that point that I desire to address myself. I venture to suggest that the action taken by the Government ought not to have been taken without asking for a commission of inquiry. In every previous case when action has been required by the League, and there has been doubt about the facts, such commissions of inquiry have been sent, and in no instance has that procedure, when adopted, failed to give satisfaction and to bring results that did justice to all the parties concerned. That was done over the Aaland Islands, in the first year of the League's existence; it was done later over Demir Kapou, over Mosul, and over Manchuria in 1931; and I venture to say that the facts which have been recited by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford, and the information with which I have supplemented what he said, show that the conquest of Abyssinia is not complete, that there is at least grave doubt as to what is the real situation in Abyssinia, and that unless the Government accept a commission of

inquiry, but proceed to recognise without it, they will take action which will not, indeed, ensure the conquest of the Abyssinian people—in that I do not believe— but which will leave upon British honour a stain which will not easily be wiped out.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (ELECTRIC MACHINE-MINING).

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I wish to raise the very important question of the use of electricity in coal mines. I am sorry that the Secretary for Mines cannot be present, but in trying to arrange this matter with him, I found that he had an important engagement into which he had entered before he knew of my intention to raise the question, and therefore, I make no complaint about his absence. I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson), who is a very able representative both of the Secretary for Mines and of the Government, for having consented to listen to the Debate, and to say a few words at the end. Yesterday, I put a question to the Secretary for Mines asking whether he would take steps to make it illegal to use electricity to drive machines in coal mines. His answer was a short one: it was "No, Sir." In a supplementary question, the Minister expressed the opinion that before anything was done in a matter such as this, he ought to have the report of the Royal Commission which is considering the question of the safety regulations. In my opinion, it is not wise for the Government to await the Royal Commission's report before dealing with this important matter.
When we have explosions in mines, with the loss of many lives, they stagger the whole country, and I venture to say that if, immediately after one of those explosions, we discussed the matter in the House, every hon. Member, no matter to what party he belonged, would be in favour of trying to see whether some way could not be found for preventing those explosions. There was the Gresford explosion, where so many lives were lost, and following that, the Government came to the conclusion that there must be a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of safety in mines. The Gresford explosion occurred in 1934, and at the Election, the Government had that policy. In December of that year, they set up


the Royal Commission to inquire into safety in mines. So far, the Royal Commission has not reported. Last year, in January, there was an explosion at Markham colliery, with the loss of nine lives, and last week the country was again staggered by an explosion that took place at Markham, with the loss of 89 lives. The occurrence of these explosions makes it essential that the Government should take this question into consideration at once to see whether anything can be done to prevent them. Some of us believe that one of the great dangers in connection with coal mining to-day arises from the use of electricity in mines. The use of electricity is something new in coal mining. It is new in the sense that it is how being used at the coal face where there is always so much gas. The introduction of electricity in that way is, I believe, an added cause of danger and involves one of the gravest risks experienced by those engaged in mining.
One strong argument why the Government should not wait until the Royal Commission report is this: As hon. Members may know, there is a remarkable difference between the accident rate in coal mines in France, and that in Great Britain. The Department of Mines recently did a very wise thing in sending the Deputy Chief Inspector to make an investigation in France. His report was issued last October—Command Paper No. 5566. I confine myself at present to that part of the report which deals with explosions in coal mines arising from electricity. In his comparison between Great Britain and France in this respect, the Deputy Chief Inspector, on page 16 of the report, says:
 ELECTRICITY. Herein lies, in part, an obvious explanation for the higher accident rate from explosions in this country. Whereas, during the period under review electricity was the cause of 17 explosions and 86 deaths in Great Britain, only one accident, resulting in one death, which occurred at an electrically driven pump, was so caused in France.…The explanation of the almost negligible accident rate from this cause in France is to be found in the fact that electricity is little used underground, other than for pumping and chiefly near downcast shafts.
I wish to draw special attention to those words. It makes an enormous difference whether the electricity is used near the downcast shaft, or whether it is used at

the coal face, perhaps a mile or two "in by." The report adds:
 The use of electrically-driven coal-face machinery is practically unknown, though some gate conveyors are electrically driven.
Then on page 8 of the report we find this:
 Though the natural conditions in France are not suitable for the extensive application of coal-face machinery, as widely practised in Great Britain, the ventilation standard limits the use of electricity in this connection, and, as is shown elsewhere in this report, the almost complete absence of the use of eltectric power at the coal face is an important contributory factor to the lower explosion death rate.
Dealing with explosions generally, the report states:
 It will be observed that for the ten years 1925–34 the French death rate from explosions was less than one-third that of Great Britain.
Figures are also given which show that the number of explosions in France for that period was n, resulting in 58 deaths, while in Great Britain in the same period, there were 117 explosions resulting in 753 deaths. The report of the Secretary for Mines for 1936—the last available—shows that in that year there were 64 deaths in coal mines as a result of explosions arising from electricity. There is abundant evidence to convince the Government that the time has come to do something to prevent a continuance of this appalling loss of life. We ought not to be asked to wait month after month. We recognise that the Royal Commission has undertaken a big task and that it cannot do its work in a hurry, but that is no reason why the Government should delay to deal with some of these important and urgent questions. As I have already said, last week's explosion staggered the country and made Members of all parties in this House feel that something ought to be done at once. Apparently it has been found possible to get over this trouble in France. Why should it not be possible to deal with it here also? I have raised this question to-night because it is not possible to deal with a subject of this kind by way of supplementary questions and because I am anxious that the Government should take some action to put an end to these recurrent disasters.

9 14 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: We are obliged tonight to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), as we so often are in


this House, for the use which he as a skilled Parliamentarian has made of this opportunity to raise this very important question. We regret the fact that the Secretary for Mines is not here, but we understand the reason for his absence and we do not blame him. We also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury for being in attendance to note what we have to say. We are not raising this matter because we have no confidence in the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines. On that Commission are representatives of both sides in the industry who have a long and intimate knowledge of the industry. But we feel that we have some right to complain about what appears to be a growing tendency in the Mines Department and on the part of the Secretary for Mines to say: "Wait until the Commission has reported." It is a very dangerous procedure to leave urgent matters, which call for immediate attention, on one side until a commission reports.
We must remember that this Commission has before it an immense task. The last Commission which dealt with this question, prior to the introduction of the 1911 Act, lasted for four years. Anyone who looks at that 1911 Act knows that the Commission has before it a tremendous task, and none of us wants to hurry them to accomplish it quickly. At the same time we do think that these questions which are coming up at the present time call for serious consideration and that whatever administrative action can be taken now, before the Commission completes its herculean task, should be taken. We are becoming accustomed in these days to sudden and catastrophic deaths. I heard a fine phrase the other day, that we stand in this age in danger of seeing all the gains of civilisation overwhelmed in this wave of violence that has come over the world. It is because we have become so accustomed to violence of all forms that perhaps our sensibilities are becoming rather dulled. An old collier, with whom I worked as a boy once said to me, "My boy, if ever I am fated to be killed in the pit, as I may be"—and tragically enough in the end he was—"I hope I shall be killed one of a hundred and not on my own, because much more fuss will be made of me, and my wife will be much better off afterwards."
It is only when something happens in a catastrophic way that the country is roused, and I am sure that we are but doing our duty to our men, when it does happen in this catastrophic way, in taking advantage of this stirring of public opinion to call attention to it while the public and the House are in the mood to listen to us. since 1920, since the end of the War, nearly 18,000 men have been killed in the mines of this country, and 2,500,000 have been injured. We read with horror in the papers every day of deaths all over the world, and perhaps we give too little attention to the deaths that take place at our very doors day in and day out. Now comes this last explosion, a kind of explosion that is happening very frequently nowadays. In reply to a question which I put to the Secretary for Mines yesterday, he said that between the beginning of 1930 and the end of 1937 there had been 91 colliery explosions in this country. That means an explosion every month in those eight years, and on the experience of this year, it will be, if anything, above rather than below the average for the last eight years. We have prided ourselves in this country that in the matter of the protection of the working man we have led the world, but on this question of avoiding explosions in mines we are not leading the world in these days, but are lagging behind.
I have no technical qualifications as such, but I had experience in the pit for 17 years as a coal miner myself, as boy and man, and ever since I left the pit some years ago I have had an intimate daily association with the mining industry. I think that very often the nontechnical experience, the experience of the practical man, ought to be brought to bear on this problem. In many ways I think the pits were safer to work in the old days when the officials were appointed for their practical knowledge and common sense, rather than for their certificates. Here we are, faced with this problem of electricity in the pits, and I am sure that it is the element of electricity and the things which machine-mining brings in its train which are the important new factors which have to be borne in mind and which, I am sure, the Royal Commission will find in the end to be one of the gravest problems that we have to face in the mining industry.
I shall never forget an opportunity which I had of visiting that first-class research station at Buxton, on an arranged tour in connection with the South Wales Miners' Federation. There, on the quiet of a summer's Sunday morning, at half-past eight, we saw an explosion staged. This summer Members of the House are going to see a demonstration of television, one of the wonders of the age. Might I suggest to the Patronage Secretary and to the Secretary for Mines that Members might also be taken to see one of the tragedies of the age, that they might be taken to Buxton to see a coal-mine explosion from coal dust staged? Let them stand on the hillside, with no fire-damp, no gas, with conditions almost as perfect as coal-mining conditions can be, and see an explosion from coal dust. You see it coming out, first a huge flame, which stretches for 100 yards, and then a thick smoke and the fire-damp. This is what kills our own kith and kin who produce the coal which we need. Who does not feel the better for it when he goes into the Library of this House and stands by the fire? Well, let him remember the man who pays the penalty for that.
We saw an experiment at Buxton, where, in a laboratory or workshop, they had a container in which they reproduced the atmosphere of a pit, an air containing 2½ per cent. of firedamp. We were told, "We will show you what kind of flame is required to explode that firedamp." First of all, they had a piece of paper which they lit and put in this explosive atmosphere, and we waited until the flame on the paper got larger and larger, and there was a distinct interval before it exploded the firedamp. Then we were shown how long it would take for sparks in a pit to explode firedamp, and there was again an appreciable interval before the explosion. Next they brought a tiny electric battery, and one tiny spark, which we could not detect with the naked eye, caused an explosion. That brought home to us the fact that when you bring electricity into the pit, the tiniest spark that no one can see, you are bringing in something which can produce one of these terrible explosions.
What occurred at Gresford we may never know, because the district in which the explosion occurred is sealed, but here this tiny spark comes in. The number of men killed in an explosion is a matter of

luck—it depends on how many men there are in the pit at the time—but we know that modern colliery explosions have become so violent that the number of people rescued is getting less. We notice that the number of people who come out alive gets smaller and smaller at each explosion. The number killed depends on the number who are there. No engineer will ever convince me that a coal mine can be made safe enough to bring an electric spark into it. We have found that of the 91 explosions that have taken place in the eight years from 1931 to 1937 45 were in collieries where all the coal cutting and conveying machinery is driven by electricity and, of the others, 12 occurred where the machinery is driven by electricity and by compressed air, so that in 57 out of the 91 mines electricity was used. Those facts have to be explained.
We are all familiar in a small way with electrical apparatus in our homes. We know how easy it is to break it up and at how many points there may be leakages, and every tiny leak contains the germ of a horrible, devastating explosion. There is not only electrically-driven machinery but there is the enormous growth of shot-firing, which has now become easier because of electricity. That is part of the trouble with electricity, that it makes everything so much easier but at the same time so much more dangerous. Millions of shots a year are fired with cables 30, 40 or 50 yards long, by means of which current is taken right to the coal face, with all the possibilities of leakage and the danger of ignition. Then the advent of machinery is changing the method of mining.
The miner is the true pioneer in this world. Every day, as he cuts away yard by yard of coal, he goes where no man has been before. He does not know what the next yard holds in store. He is really the prospector, the pioneer who adventures into the dark each day. In the old mining days, when each man worked in his own stall and cut his roadway, ventilation was better. Now we have these new-fangled notions. The Secretary for Mines has told us that in 45 of the 91 collieries where explosions have taken place strip packing was adopted or there was no packing at all. Every miner knows what that means. You have long distances behind in which there is no


packing and where there are accumulations of firedamp, and there is pressure driving it forward to the coal face. These are the conditions under which the new marvel of the age, the terrible danger to the miner, electricity, is brought in.
We may have to wait, perhaps we ought to wait, a few more months for the report of the Royal Commission. Perhaps we ought to give them time. At the same time steps ought to be taken now. There is reason to suspect that electricity may be at the root of these explosions. Are we asking too much in asking that until the Commission completes its task the use of electricity shall be stopped? There is another factor which impresses me very much. Prior to the advent of modern machine-mining, perhaps because of the kind of coal that was worked, South Wales was one of the worst districts. I vividly remember an explosion in which there was a death roll of 400 sent to eternity on one shift. In recent years South Wales has been comparatively better off because relatively little electricity is used to drive the machinery. Compressed air can drive machinery and it does in South Wales. I am told that the cost is a little higher, but if you put the loss of life into the balance there is a case for the suspension of the use of electricity until the Commission has reported. The tragic story goes on month by month.
I think we have been fully justified in raising the matter and in expressing the hope that the Secretary of Mines will consult with his inspectors immediately and take such interim action as is possible by administration to stop some of the worst practices, and then we shall live in the hope that when the Commission has reported something of a fundamental character will be done to make the pits as safe as they can be made.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I make no apology for rising in this Debate, for I believe that we should take every opportunity of bringing this matter before the House. I remember coming down Kingsway on Tuesday last week and seeing a newspaper vendor put out a new placard. It said: "Colliery explosion, feared loss of life." When a miner sees a thing like that he wonders at once what has happened, and a vivid picture comes to his

mind of the long airways and underground tunnels where he knows that if an explosion has taken place it is a death trap and nobody can expect to come out alive. Then he wonders in what part of the coalfield it has happened and whether it is in his district, but he knows that wherever it is there has been loss of human life. Then he wonders what the cause of it is. To every miner two things come uppermost in his mind— shot firing and electricity. Then he naturally goes on to ask himself, "What can be done to avoid these explosions?"
We have taken this opportunity to describe to the House as vividly as we can what such explosions mean and what we think can prevent them. My two hon. Friends have spoken for other parts of the coalfield—one for Durham and one for South Wales. I come from Lancashire, which is as highly mechanised as any other part of the coalfield. Electricity obtains in every mine and we get constant reports of what takes place. In cutting, coal miners use a long wheel or disc that undercuts the coal. Sometimes in the coal there is a hard substance called iron pyrites which is harder than the coal. When the disc strikes this substance a flame comes out. Men have described to me many times how they have seen this flame. There is no checking the machine, for there is a certain amount of work to do and it goes on, regardless of what it means, tearing its way through the coal. If the flame comes when there happens to be any gas about there is an explosion. If there is no gas, fire is often set up and the whole coal face becomes alight. One can imagine that if there is any sign of gas there is bound to be an explosion owing to the consequent picking up of the coal dust. All this is made worse by the use of electricity.
We are trying to-night to stir up not only the House of Commons but the nation to do something in regard to this matter. I want the appeal to become so intense that the coalowners will be driven to do something. When I heard the Secretary for Mines the other day voicing sympathy with those who suffered loss in the recent explosion, I felt the surge of sympathy going through every Member in the House. I thought, "That is very good, but cannot they do something in this matter?" It is not sufficient that


we should have a wave of sympathy when an explosion takes place and to leave it at that. It is not sufficient to get up a public subscription to relieve the people who are suffering. That does not meet the situation. What we want, and what we are trying to get, is something effective to prevent the deplorable loss of fife which takes place so often in our coalfields. We are satisfied that it can be done. It might not be on the particular lines suggested by my hon. Friends, but we ought not to rest until some strong and urgent steps are taken.
I would like hon. Members opposite to go to Buxton some Sunday morning, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and if you could spare the time, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to go also, because I feel you could help us in this matter. What I have seen there is one of the most terrible things I have witnessed in my life with all my knowledge of pit work. It is well worth anyone's time to go and see what can happen when an explosion takes place. I remember going last summer with a party of boys from St. Helens Mining School, where we teach them the dangers of mining. We took them to Buxton to show them what can happen when an explosion takes place so that they would get pit sense and learn not to tamper with the various things that can cause an explosion. There was a blast which almost scorched us, and one boy said, "I will never go down a pit again after what I have seen." What he saw at Buxton left such a vivid impression on his mind that he was determined not to go down again. I feel satisfied that if hon. Members on the other side went to Buxton they would be as eager as we are to-night in trying to do everything possible to prevent this kind of thing happening. We believe that if electricity is taken from the mines it may not prevent explosions in all instances, but it will go a long way to make the mines safer than they are at present. We hope that the Royal Commission will find that the time has come when electricity must be taken from the mine until it can be used in a way that it cannot cause trouble. I recognise that electricity is a great potential force, but at the moment it has not been found to be safe for the mines. Until means can be provided to prevent the dangers it causes it ought not

to be taken into the deadly atmosphere of fire damp.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Cape: I do not apologise to the House for joining in this Debate. I suppose that I have had the most unique experience of any man in regard to explosions. It has been my unfortunate lot to have to go into pits on seven occasions after explosions, and I have had to do a good deal of rescue work and in searching for bodies that have probably been left in a pit for weeks. Even after all those experiences I could not describe to the House all the horrors of a colliery explosion. It is beyond the power of any man who has never seen them to imagine what they are like. I have taken part in a good many inquiries into the case of explosions both in my own county and in South Wales, and while I am not prepared to say that all those explosions were caused by electricity, I am satisfied in my own mind that shot-firing and the use of electricity are two of the gravest dangers in the mines to-day.
That can be proved by what has happened in recent years—proved not by the explosions but by what has been done by the Mines Department and the Mining Research Board. I had the privilege of being a member of that board for some years, and I want to pay a tribute to the many eminent scientists who were on the board during my time. They used their skill and knowledge to try to find ways and means of preventing explosions caused by shot-firing and the use of electricity. From time to time the Mines Department have issued a large number of orders regarding the use of electricity in mines, with the object of introducing safeguards. That in itself is proof sufficient that everyone concerned with mining, either from a practical or from a scientific point of view, is satisfied that there is danger in the use of electricity. If there is not then why have so many regulations issued saying that this or that has to be done where electricity is in use?
In mining, Nature has provided more dangers than man can cope with, but some of the devices introduced by man have, unfortunately, tended to add to those dangers. The call for larger output and for progress in mining methods


has caused men to devise ways and means of employing mechanical power to secure larger production, and electrical power has been introduced into the mines, and its use is extending every year. In the modern mine practically everything is electrified. In a good many pits the men descend and ascend by electricity, the haulage is electrified, there is electrical signalling apparatus. I would point out that only approved electrical signalling apparatus can be used, showing that even there precautions have to be taken to prevent the dangers arising from electricity. Shot-firing is largely done by electricity, and orders have been issued in recent years that only such batteries may be used for shot-firing as are approved by the Mines Department. Coal-cutting machines and conveyers are driven by electricity. In short, nearly everything in the modem pit is electrified. There is no scientist who is prepared to say that explosions cannot be caused by an electric spark. That has been proved time and again. An explosion in a coal mine is not like a fire in a house, where the spreading of the flames can be checked, because once the fatal spark has gone into an inflammable atmosphere in a mine, then, in the twinkling of an eye, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, hundreds of men may be hurled into eternity.
Answering a question in the House the other day, the Secretary for Mines said that he could not take any action towards suppressing the use of electricity in mines until the Commission investigating the subject had presented its report. Under ordinary circumstances that would be a reasonable answer to give. If it were a question concerning unemployment benefit, for example, it would be quite proper for a Minister to say that he was awaiting the report of some Commission which was inquiring into it. This is a question of life and death, and cannot wait. If we are satisfied that electricity is a dangerous factor in mines it will be dangerous to-morrow, and might mean that 200 men will be hurled into eternity. If we are satisfied that shot-firing is a dangerous factor in mines we cannot wait for the report of the Royal Commission. These things are too serious, and affect human life in such a way that it is impossible to allow them to continue.
Very wide powers are possessed by the Secretary for Mines, or at least by his

chief the President of the Board of Trade. Under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, they have power to issue orders for safety in mines. Nobody complains about that power, but as the Minister has power to issue regulations as to how electricity should be used and how shots should be fired, surely he has power to prevent those two dangers in the mines. It is very desirable to eliminate them altogether. Unless you do so, the dangers are still there. The number of persons killed by electricity in mines in this country is very alarming. I cannot give the actual figures now, but I can tell the House that in one small colliery in my division and which employs only 120 men, two men were killed this year by an electric cable. I lent a hand in conveying the bodies of the men from the pit to their homes. Another two men had a narrow escape. Everybody in the mines thought that all the necessary safety devices for the protection of the men had been provided. Again, four men were, not killed this time, but nearly killed, by a similar accident. Technical experts have tried to find out what caused the death of those men.
In these matters we have to consider the danger to the individual. Every man and boy working in a pit which is electrified faces the possibility of an explosion and is always in potential danger, even though he is not actually within the danger zone. I wish to add my plea to those which have been made by my hon. Friends that the Secretary for Mines and his experts should not wait for the report of the Royal Commission but should concentrate upon deciding whether electricity should or should not be eliminated altogether from the mines of this country.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: We do not need to apologise for raising this question on the Adjournment. The only thing I feel sorry about is that there are not more Members present in the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Even on our benches.

Mr. Griffiths: I have never been more moved by a speech than I was by that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). It was a marvellous oration. It was something that came from his soul and not something that he read in a book. It was


something that he had experienced. I know that it says somewhere in the Bible:
 One thing I know.
He did not read it. He knew it. We men in the industry have some knowledge of these things. I thank the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) for giving us the opportunity of putting this across. I express my thanks also to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. I am very pleased that he brought forward the experiments at Buxton. I have had experience of Buxton. I am pleased that I was one of the first members of the Miners' Welfare Committee to inaugurate the safety classes for mining boys from 14 years of age so that they should know something about the dangers of the mines.
I remember one little lad in Yorkshire at the pit where I worked. Somebody said to him down the pit: "Jack, what are you doing that for? Has nobody told thee about that danger?" The little lad's answer was: "Nobody has said anything to me about danger except my mother." That was something that wanted a remedy, and the classes for boys are an attempt to provide that remedy by giving the boys an insight into the dangers, both on the surface and below-ground. I remember going with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) to Buxton. We took 30 or 40 of the lads from our pit and the pits round about, and they saw an explosion. It was an instruction, a terrifying instruction, to the boys and to us as well. Not many men who have actually been working when an explosion has taken place are living to-day, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, fewer men come out of a pit alive to-day after an explosion than ever before. The percentage is smaller to-day than it has ever been.
Since I have been in this House four explosions have taken place in my division. Three were directly caused, I believe, by electricity and one was from another cause. I went to bed at half-past 10 at night about 12 months ago last August. When I got up in the morning my wife was downstairs before me, and she said: "George, one of the pits has gone up."—That is how our wives speak of explosions. They know what explosions mean.—" There are over 60 men down." I made my way to the pit as

early as I could, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, who is sitting here now, was there almost as quickly as myself, and he went down the pit. I wanted to go down at once, but they said to me, "George, in your state you had better stay here." If there is anything that I admire, it is the way in which, when anything like this happens, men race to get down the pit to their comrades. When I was in the office with one of the inspectors, we got the plan of the pit showing where the explosion had happened. One of my friends walked in, and said to me, "George, my lad is down there," and he asked one of the officials whether he might go down. The official said, "No, you had better not go down; you must stay here." Then, when they showed us the point in the plan, I said to my friend, "Charlie, where was your lad working last night?" He said that he was working at such-and-such a junction, and I said, "If he is working there, he is safe." It turned out later that the lad had been sent inbye about 600 yards, and when he came out of the pit he was unrecognisable. I shall never forget going into the school that day. There were 54 men lying in straw, covered with brown blankets. I said to the people in charge, "Can I see so-and-so?" I had known him all my life, but, when the blanket was turned down, I did not recognise him at all. It reminds me of another passage from the Bible, which I am not afraid to quote:
I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.
I turned round to someone and said, "This is the price of coal." I am sorry that there are so few Members present in the House to-night, because we do not often get the opportunity of putting across our case. The total number killed in 1936 —the figure for 1937, which I cannot quote at the moment is even higher—was 890 men and boys. As I have said, the total for 1937 was higher still, and God alone knows what the figure for 1938 is going to be. We have just had 79 killed at one pit. They said that that pit was one of the safest, and that the management had done all they could to prevent things like this from happening. If that is the case, what are we to look forward to later? The total number killed in 1936 was 890, but, in addition, we have to remember, as my hon. Friend the Member


for Workington (Mr. Cape) has said, the number that are maimed.
The figures given in the report on compensation are most startling. Very few people take any notice of them, but we are compelled to take notice of them when we see the number of men who are on half wages for almost 12 months, and very often have to go to the Poor Law in order to get assistance to enable them to live. These are not cold-blooded figures to us, but actual facts. During the past five years, 968,682 persons were injured in the mines. In 1936, the total number of accidents was 180,893, affecting 34 per cent. of the men working. That means that one man in every four working in the pits gets hurt every year, or that the entire population of the mining industry meet with accidents in the course of four years. Electricity is an additional danger. I am not going to attempt to describe it. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has done so, and I need not go over the ground again. But I felt, knowing something about this matter, and having worked in the pits for a good number of years, that it was not out of place that I should say a few words upon it.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I should not like an occasion such as this to go by without adding my word to the appeal which has been under by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Like other Members on this side of the House, I very much regret the absence from the Benches opposite of Members who constitute the Government, but at the same time I am glad that the Patronage Secretary is here. Undoubtedly he will take a note of this discussion and convey it to the proper quarter. I am glad also, as we all are, that our own Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is on the Bench to hear the discussion. I do not profess to be able to put this case with nearly the same eloquence with which it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I am sure that we as miners, and the country generally, are indebted to them both. I myself, unfortunately, have had the experience of passing through several of these explosions in coal mines, and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), I happened to have had the experience of being

in a coal mine at the time when the explosion occurred. It was due to good luck that I happen to be here to-night to make my contribution to this Debate. Of the six explosions of which I have had experience, I am confident in my own mind that five could either be traced to the use—or misuse—of electricity in the mine, or were caused by shot-firing. It is because I am so painfully conscious of the hazards that the miners are running in the coal mines of this country that I would like to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth called attention to an explosion in which 58 men were killed. I happen to have seen the same machine, the electric machine which was the direct cause of that explosion. When 75 per cent. of explosions in the coal mines of this country are directly attributable either to the use of electricity or of shot-firing, every Member who is in the House at the moment, and those who are not, will, I am sure, feel indebted to us for raising this matter. In one of the explosions of which I happen "to have had experience—the Maltby Colliery explosion—I found that my youngest brother had lost his life, and his body has not been recovered. He went through the War, from 1914 to 1918, and came through safely; and then lost his life in an attempt to save a colliery from wreckage. In 1917, coal cutting was introduced into this mine—the Maltby Colliery in Yorkshire. It is true that the coal cutters were not electricalily driven. They were driven by compressed air. But I take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Whether coal cutters are driven by electricity or by compressed air, my experience proves that if the seam is a gassy one, and if there is stone or rock within the seam, and if the teeth of the coal cutter come into contact with the "brass," or stone, and there is gas being emitted from that particular section of the seam, explosions will undoubtedly occur, whether electricity or compressed air is being used.
After 10 years' experience with coal cutters, we were successful, by trade union activity, in bringing every coal cutter out of the pit. From 1927 to the present time not a single ton of coal has been touched by machinery, and not a single shot has been fired in that pit. I am sure that my friends on this side will


appreciate that side of it. But the main point I want to relate is this. The hon. Member for Spennymoor called attention of the report of the inspector who visited France. Ours is a deep and gassy mine. Every machine was brought out of the pit in 1927, and I am glad to say that the last fatal accident which took place at Maltby Colliery, which has an output of 1,000,000 tons a year, was nearly five years ago. Thus, one man has been killed while just under 5,000,000 tons of coal have been produced at that particular colliery. There has not been a single shot fired or a single ton of coal cut by machinery in that pit, and if one relates that to the national output of coal for 1937—and many of us thing that this is the explanation—800 men have been killed in the coal mines of this country who would not have been killed but for the introduction of machinery. Another important point is that, if that experience could be made applicable to the coal mines of the country generally, the fatality rate would have been less than the fatality rate in France at the present time. It is amazing that one is able to give an example of that kind.
I want to add a few words to the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friends for better control. I take the view particularly of my old friend the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape), who has had a very wide experience, that the mines could be carried on equally as well without coal-cutting by machinery and shot-firing. In the group of pits in the combine to which I have referred—they comprise five of the largest pits in South Yorkshire—I understand that the production per man employed where no machines are used is higher than that in the pits where machines are used. The wages earned by the men are higher than in the pits where machines are used whether these machines are driven by electricity or by compressed air, and the operating costs of the company are less per ton where machines are not used. Therefore, the production per man is higher, wages are higher per ton per man employed, and the production and operative costs are less where machines are not used than is the case in the pits where they are used, apart from the fact that the fatality rate for the last five years has been one man killed to just under 5,000,000 tons of coal produced. These

are astounding facts which should be put before this House. I went to Buxton. It was an appalling experience. Hon. Members of this House are invited to see aeroplane displays and all sorts of things, but I would like every Member of his House to see Buxton in operation. Then I think the feelings of the people, not only in this House but in the country, may be stirred.
There are two other things that I should like to say, and one of them may be considered rather strong. I take the view that if the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act were carried out now in the coal mines, accidents would be diminished considerably. I assert that the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act is not being carried out and that the regulations applied to the uses of electricity in mines are not being applied in the way they ought to be. The strong thing that I want to say is this, and the miners take the same view. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee) I attended the funeral of the 79 men killed last Saturday at the Markham Main Colliery. It is a tragic experience for any one to see coffin after coffin carried through the streets. The point I want to make is that after my experience, and following the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor, I say with no disrespect whatever to the Chief Inspector of Mines or to the inspectorate staff as a whole, that when the inquiry takes place into the disaster that has occurred at Markham Main Colliery the person who should conduct the inquiry should have judicial and technical qualifications, and should be separate and apart from the inspectorate staff attached to the Board of Trade and the Mines Department. Until we can do that, we shall not get to the root of the whole problem.
I also take the view, resulting from my experience, that until this country is prepared to deal harshly with the people who are not carrying out the provisions of the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act, and until this country is prepared to handle severely and charge with manslaughter some of the people responsible for running the pits, there will be nothing done of an effective character. I make my appeal, and I would ask that what has been said from these benches to-night will be conveyed to the appropriate authority.


although the language used may have been strong in certain respects.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Lee: It has been suggested that hon. Members on the other side should go to Buxton to get an idea of what a colliery explosion is. May I suggest that they will get no real idea of a colliery explosion from what happens at Buxton. I do not decry what we are doing there, because I am a member of the Mines Research Board which has to do with Buxton; but when you get there you find a tunnel cut out of the rock, with two open ends, and a prepared explosion, but when you get into the confines of a pit, with no open ends, you get the full force of an explosion, which is an entirely different thing from something that is an arranged explosion at Buxton.
The memory of the explosion at Mark-ham Main is with me still. This is the fourth explosion of which I have had experience in recent years. With respect to the other three—the Markham Main explosion is sub judice—the cause of the explosion was electricity. I remember, 40 years ago, having a very strong argument with Mr. Stokes, an inspector of mines at that time, when he said that a coal-cutting machine could not produce a spark sufficient to light gas. I took him down a colliery and showed him that not only was it strong enough to light gas but that it was strong enough to set wood on fire. Then he believed that I was right. There has, of course, been a good deal of improvement in coal-cutting machinery since those days. At Buxton we have had tests in order to be sure that the machinery is flame-proof. I know it is difficult when you have the machine on the top to produce a flame, but when you get the machine down in the confines of a pit and it goes wrong, it is very difficult to repair it. Last January there was an explosion at the same colliery where the recent one took place. It was admitted that they had had some repairs done to the switchboard. When they put the machines back again it was found that in one part of the switchbox a gap had been left sufficient to let flames get through. No one in the pit could see that it was not in proper condition, but when it was at the top it was found that there was just space sufficient to let flames get through.
Electricity is a good servant but sometimes may be a bad master. We do all we can by means of the Safety in Mines Research Board. I have given credit to the colliery for what they have done, but I am sure that when your coal-cutting machines are driven by electricity there is such a potential danger that do what you may and be as careful as you may, where the human element has to come in, you will find that the human element fails and the machinery fails, and I do not think that in the confines of a pit you should put into human hands an element so potential of danger. I agree with my hon. Friends who suggest that the machines could be driven by compressed air, and I understand there is very little difference in cost between the two. I also agree that where you have the same kind of material in the coal, as you do sometimes, you may get a spark from the coal, and if you have gas you will still get an explosion. There is one thing in my mind about the recent explosion, and that is the wide area over which the explosion occurred. We came to the conclusion that explosions in the future would probably be confined to a small area, and that the consequent loss of life would be small, but this time the explosion is spread over a larger area. We have rules and regulations with regard to stone-dusting, and we have been told that if this is properly done it will stop the spread of an explosion; you may limit the area covered. I am not saying whether stone-dusting was done in this instance or not. There is evidence that it was done, but it did not confine the explosion to a small area which we thought would be the case. I say that electricity in any shape or form away from the pit bottom is a very great potential danger.
Some time ago there was an agitation in the country about the price of coal. It was said that the colliery owners were getting too much out of coal, and that miners' wages were so high that they were being extravagant. Then, when there is an explosion, as last week, for four or five days everybody sympathises with the miners. I heard one of my friends say that he would not go down a pit for £1,000. Expressions of sympathy have come from all sorts of people, from Herr Hitler down to the poorest of the poor. I heard that one little boy went into a


shop the other day with twopence for sweets, but said to the shopkeeper, '' Give me a pennyworth to-day and send the other penny to the boys and girls who have lost their fathers at Markham." How long will this sympathy last? If you want to avoid these things—and I take it you do—then any potential danger must be removed from the mines. Coalmining will not be made the safe occupation that it ought to be until there is taken from the mines the potential danger which surrounds work of that description.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Whiteley: I think that every hon. Member who heard the Secretary for Mines answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) last week was very deeply moved. I do not remember an occasion in the House when I had felt so strongly. Therefore, this Debate must necessarily bring 'the attention of the Government to matters relating to underground work in the mines at the present time. We have heard a good deal tonight about the experiments at Buxton with regard to the prevention of explosions caused by shot-firing. I remember that in 1917, Mr. Smillie, who was at one time a Member of the House, Mr. Herbert Smith, and I paid a visit to Eskmeals, when Dr. Wheeler was making experiments for the purpose of proving that stone-dusting would, if not absolutely, to a very large extent, eliminate explosions caused by shot-firing by the prevention of expansion.
A good deal of time has elapsed since 1917, and I think that the House, the country, and particularly the mining community, ought to have a report from the Secretary for Mines as to whether stone-dusting is being done on a general scale, and what is the experience with regard to it as compared with the time when stone-dusting was not in use. One of my hon. Friends has pointed out that the experiments at Buxton cannot compare with the situation in a mine, and I quite agree. The experiments at Eskmeals were similar. They were on above-ground work, but galleries were made so as to make them, as far as possible, similar to underground work. Nevertheless, they could not have the same experience above-ground as in underground workings. We also visited the Merthyr

Vale collieries in Wales, the Normanton collieries, and the Washington colliery in Durham, in order to see the operation of stone-dusting in those collieries. It was felt in those days that stone-dusting would have a great effect in limiting the extent of accidents in mines due to shot-firing. We should have some information from the Secretary of Mines as to what progress has been made in that direction.
There is, of course, the added danger which has developed in recent years as a result of the introduction of electricity. The modern mine is not comparable with the mine of former days. There are all kinds of machinery in mines to-day— scrapers, cutters, fillers, and the like— and there is a tremendous noise which prevents men from hearing, as they could hear in the old days, the sound of timber cracking and other warnings of danger. Then, in these days, the electric spark is a centre of danger. The Mines Department and the Board of Trade ought to concentrate upon finding out whether there is not some alternative method which would obviate the tremendous dangers run by our people in the mines day after day. This Debate must call the attention of the Government to the kind of inquiry which has been rendered necessary to the latest disaster. That accident has created tremendous feeling in the country. We hope the inquiry which is to be carried out will be made by independent people and people of experience, able to dissect evidence and to find out the real cause of the accident and how it is possible to prevent such occurrences in future.
A great wave of feeling goes through the country when an explosion of this kind occurs. We, as miners, are very thankful for the generosity of the public in these cases, but we have reached the point of feeling that this kind of thing ought not to depend upon the public. There ought to be compensation reforms passed by Parliament which would guarantee to the widows and children of these men absolute security for the rest of their lives. That is one of the points to which we hope to direct attention on a future occasion. Our immediate purpose is to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to convey to the Secretary for Mines and the Board of Trade our strong feeling that this inquiry should


be conducted by people with some knowledge of the mining industry, who will command the confidence of the general public and who will be able to arrive at a just decision.

10.44.p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: It seems that we may be on the eve of the introduction of legislation to deal with this problem of serious accidents in mines, and it is scarcely necessary to remind the House or the country that we are dealing, in this connection, not only with the lives of the men themselves but with the lives of widows and dependants. I do not think it is ever fully realised, except when a serious disaster occurs, how cheaply our coal is obtained, and the comfort which the miners bestow upon the people of the country at such risk to themselves. But it is not only the great disasters—it is the smaller disasters, causing some 800 people to be killed every year, which represent the price paid by the miners in supplying the coal of the country. Reference has been made to-night by one hon. Member who has had a vivid experience of explosions. I have only been in one explosion in a mine, and it was a terrible experience. It was not a large explosion. Fortunately, there was no death, and only one man was injured, severely burned, but the feeling of helplessness, that you are overpowered, first as though water was rushing upon you and next as though you were undoubtedly going to be buried, was terrible.
I have been reading with great interest the report that the Secretary for Mines has enabled us to have by sending an inspector over to Paris. The number of accidents from explosions is remarkably lower in France than here. Why is that? A very important thing to me, in reading that report, was to find that the output per man-shift is as high there as it is here. I found that on account of the nature of the seams and the inclination, they were getting their coal largely with mechanical picks driven by compressed air, and I then said to myself, "I wonder why this has come to pass in France." I remembered some years ago a terrible disaster, the worst there has ever been in the mining industry, when just over 1,000 men and boys lost their lives in an explosion in a mine in France, and I asked myself—I have not the answer—" Is this the reason that

they have taken such grave and strong precautions in the winning of their coal in France? Is the work done by compressed air so that the danger of an explosion from electricity, either in the cutting machine or the fusing of a cable, can be eliminated, because in the memory of the French people there is that great disaster which determined them never again to risk such a disaster? "
The plea that we are making to-night is that the miner is of such importance in our opinion, and ought to be in the opinion of the rest of the people of this country, that if we cannot control electricity to prevent these disasters, then electricity ought to be out of the mine. Let me give another analogy, because the question of cost is always a formidable-obstacle to get over. The Government will realise that without my stressing the point. We had a great disaster in Northumberland some 70 years ago, when about 200 men and boys were suffocated in a mine because there was only one shaft. Up to that time the coalowners of this country could not afford to have a second shaft, a second way out, because it would add so much to the cost of the working of the mine. There had been many agitations from miners and progressive minded people for a second way out, but when that beam of that pumping machine broke and fell into the shaft, and those men were suffocated, the indignation of this country was aroused to such an extent that this House had to make compulsory a second way out.
We are going through a new stage in mining. Thank God we have had none of these serious explosions in Northumberland, but that does not prevent us having a fellow-feeling for those who are working in other coalfields who have these dangers to endure. How many more-disasters are we to have before we deal effectually with electricity in the mines?' I have here the report of an inquiry into' an explosion.
It is to be hoped that in the course of time such a fundamental investigation may lead to improvements in cutting practice which will, as a first line of defence, minimise the risk of ignition. Where the conditions at the face permit, there is no reason why some means of dealing with incipient fires should not be carried actually by coal cutting machines in the form either of the supply of stone dust or a fire extinguisher.
If conditions at the face do not permit, there should not be a machine there. I


will not say anything detrimental about inspectors. I have the greatest respect for them, but I think that by taking the attitude that a pit should be according to the way they think it should be, not according to the way it is being worked or has been worked for some time past, they would bring the pit into a better state. That might go a long way to prevent such disasters as these. No one but miners can have any idea of the speed at which our men are working and the terrific strain that is thrown upon them to get an output. In the old days a man could practically finish his days in the mine after he had served his company for some 40 or 50 years and he might be given an easy job. There are some colliery companies which used even to give their own ponies a rest until they died. Now the older men are paid off and we have at the face men at the prime of life, full of energy.
We are increasing the pressure also with the coal-cutter. We are doing something else. We are making the length of the face such a distance that everything has to go like clockwork so that men shall get the work done in a prescribed time. If anything goes wrong there is chaos and the whole cycle of operations is thrown out. I was talking to a man who knows something about coal-cutting machines in regard to the number of cables that are burnt. He said, "Do you know how these cables are burnt? It is because a man has a greater amount of face to do in a limited time, and on goes the juice with a bang." That is the cause of an explosion, and it could be obviated if there were not so much speed and if the faces were shortened. We are pleading to-night for the lives of men. Here is the compensation report for 1936, and it is an abominable shame that the percentage of men being injured in the mines to-day is higher than ever and that after a few weeks of compensation, unless they have been members of co-operative societies and have a little bit saved up, they have to go on public assistance. The insurance companies are doing well out of it. Of the £12,500,000, £8,000,000 goec in compensation and other charges, and the other £4,500,000 goes to the people who are raking in the shekels for merely keeping the books and gathering the premiums. If something is not done, we, as mining Members, are going to shake

things up. It is no use our talking. There must be some action, and we hold the Government responsible for bringing in legislation to save the lives of our men and to give them adequate compensation when the unavoidable accident takes place.

10.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): We have listened this evening to some very moving and heart-rending speeches, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government make no complaint whatever that the opportunity which presented itself this evening was taken to raise this most important subject. Reference has been made to the fact that the benches in all quarters of the House have been sparsely attended. I think the answer to that must be that hon. Gentlemen did not know that this important subject was going to be raised on the Adjournment. A number of Members went home when the Debate on the foreign subject was raised, and I would not like it to go out that the House was sparsely attended when a subject of this importance was being debated. I wish I were competent to take my share in the Debate on behalf of the Government, but hon. Gentlemen will recognise that that is obviously impossible. They will recognise with me that only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Captain Margesson: I will content myself with saying this, that in all quarters of the House we have been deeply impressed by the speeches to which we have listened to-night, speeches of great sincerity, speeches born of wide knowledge, speeches which come from deep and tragic experiences in connection with this subject of accidents in mines and the methods which could be adopted to prevent them. Quite naturally it is a subject which rivets the attention of all Members in all quarters of the House, whether they sit for mining constituencies or whether they do not. It is our unhappy lot in this House to listen to answers to questions which have to announce some


tragic disaster in coalmining, and the answers always end with an expression of sympathy with those who have been bereaved. I am sure there is not a Member who, when he hears that phrase at the conclusion of the answer, does not say to himself sincerely, "Cannot something be done to prevent this suffering?" I know that that is the feeling in all quarters of the House, and hon. Members opposite may rest perfectly assured that I shall not only convey the remarks which have been made this evening to the Secretary for Mines and, indeed, to other quarters also, but that I shall see to it that the spirit in which those remarks were made is also conveyed to those quarters.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I do not want to detain the House for long and I have not many qualifications for speaking in this Debate, except that I represent a mining area and that my early life was spent in a mining village, and that I have vivid recollections of seeing men and boys brought out of the coal mine dead and maimed, some of them boys with whom I had played and worked, and the effect upon me in those days was such that I welcome the fact that I now have the opportunity, in this august assembly, of saying a word or two on behalf of miners and their wives and families. I have in my hand a copy of the report which has been referred to so often to-night, and I wish to congratulate the author of it. Going carefully through it, I have been somewhat ashamed to find that we are behind France in many respects in the matter of safety in mines. Whether that difference is entirely due to the use of electricity I do not know. I sometimes wonder whether those little children who while playing on the seashore picked up amber, or electron as it has been called, and discovered its electrical properties while playing with it, ever realised that in other

days far ahead little children would lose their fathers through the use of electricity in mines.
On page 12 of the report there is a table setting out explosions by causes. I do not want to refer to all the causes, but only to explosions attributed to electricity. Explosions caused in France by electricity numbered one, in the 10 years from 1924 to 1935, inclusive; in Great Britain, in the same period, the number was 17. Deaths in France caused by such explosions were one, and in this country 86. The death-rate per 1,000 persons below ground in France was .0005, through the same cause, electricity; in this country it was .0115, which is 23 times the French rate. The average number of explosions in France, apart from electricity, was 1.1 and the average number of deaths 5.8. In Great Britain the average number of explosions during that 10-year period was 11.7and the average annual deaths 75.3.
Something has been said about visits to Buxton and the terror that was seen there. If it is so terrible and appalling to see explosions where there is no loss of life, what must the terror be in actual experience when it results in loss of life? If we cannot go to Buxton perhaps we can go to the funeral of some of the victims of explosions and see the grief of the widows, the relatives and the little children. That is an experience that I and many of my hon. Friends have had. Can nothing be done to exclude electricity from the mines for the time being, until the report on safety is issued? What if another disaster occurred, caused by electricity, after this appeal? What would the miners say? What would the country say?

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.